Roy Moore, Alabama Chief Idiot back in the news yet again.

It used to be the case before the Fourteenth Amendment.

quote:

---

"Anti-gay bigot." Right

---

It would seem to be an accurate description.

quote:

---

vermin and cockroaches. Right.

---

That's more your thinking

quote:

---

People who know from God's word that homosexuality is a sin and marriage is for a man and a woman

---

No. You'll note that neither the law nor I precribe penalties for belief.

quote:

---

. Right, just anti-gay bigots who have no right to go on earning a living in the supposedly freest nation in the world. Ha ha ha.

---

Again, I've never said that anti-discrimination laws are unquestionably right. You're the one who refused to discuss the matter. And you quite happily accept the same laws when they targeted those Christians who "knew" that God wanted the races to stay apart.And I might add that as a self-styled "Bible believing Christian" you seem oddly unwilling to follow the Bible when it says that you should follow the law, or give any good reason why you should not.

quote:

---

It used to be the case before the Fourteenth Amendment.

---

Passed in 1868. So you'd think that a judge would know about it.

Uh, yes, of course. I likened businesses to churches because both are organizations, but it's fine if you prefer to put it in personal terms. Freedom of religion is a right given to people and churches, not businesses. Businesses do not have the right to the free exercise of religion because businesses do not have religions, people and churches do.--Percy

No. It was never the case that states could override or ignore the Constitution. The only difference the Fourteenth Amendment makes is that more of the protections of the Constitution are extended to the states than was the case before. States never had authority to ignore the Constitution.There really is no end to your ignorance, is there?

Revisionist view of it I'd say since all it has done is extend federal tyranny over the states and what exactly did it do for the blacks it was originally intended to help anyway?

So Christians running a business are fair game, no more First Amendment for them. I wonder what the Founders would say about that.

But when such penalties are the result of the law you attack the believer anyway. Six of one half a dozen of the other.

But that's not how California works, Faith. We get to vote on stuff, again & again if enough signatures are collected, so your idea of state's rights allows for this event.So please answer my question. Tell me how this works, when the whims of the people are allowed to change positions on this issue. Laws have consequences, so explain how the government is supposed to deal with your idea of state's rights.

I don't understand your problem. Voters get to vote, right? So let them vote. What IS your problem. You act like you know HOW they are going to vote, going to change their minds and all that. How do you know anything of the sort?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

quote:

---

But when such penalties are the result of the law you attack the believer anyway.

---

But the believer is not being attacked. Indeed crafting a law to attack believers IS against the First Amendment. But we have good reasons to think that has not happened in this case. Extending a protection guaranteed to some minorities to another which has been and still is the victim of discrimination is eminently reasonable in itself. The fact that you don't like this particular minority is not relevant, no matter how important it is to you.

So the two most activist judges on the court are disgusted by activism.Who'd have thunk it?

Right. You get to define what's a legitimate minority and you get to make laws protecting that minority that just happen to penalize Christians who are just minding their own business when the new law comes down and the new minority decides to prosecute them for what they've always believed and practiced without doing harm to anyone, so you manage to do this to Christians without actually "crafting a law against them," which is really very clever if that is the ulterior goal. Which it has to be.

Not so. Fundy Christians are being discriminated against for discriminating against gays.The christians are being forced to allow gay marriage in their states like the gays were just normal USA citizens like the christians. They are being forced to comply with non-discrimination laws which discriminate against the christians' right to discriminate against others. There needs to be a law barring discrimination against discrimination.

Activist in this case means acting against the Constitution. The two you are calling activist are acting in favor of the Constitution.