I don't have time to read previous posts.....
What happens when a doctor refuses to perform an abortion due to religious beliefs?
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.
lol.
you idiots always suck at the Constitution.
holy shit--who the fuck taught you how to read?
Good lord this moron just won't stop!
Now he's telling us that a gay person who patrons a business is, "imposing their gayness"? Sure I guess, if you are so fucking mentally unstable that when you see something you have to then become/act like that person.
And there are laws against businesses discriminating against broad swaths of people.
Thanks again for showing us your ignorance, we now know we can safely ignore your posts as they just contain nonsense.
What?
You sure are reaching there, Mr.
Back some of that up with proof,pls.
a)It's OK for a gay person to patronize a business.
b)It's not OK for a gay person to ask for special concessions from a business because of their homosexuality.
c)It's not OK for a person to ask for special concessions from a business that infringe on the business's religious liberty.
Keep going..
No ones asking for special concessions dumb ass!
Are you drunk?
lol.
you idiots always suck at the Constitution.
holy shit--who the fuck taught you how to read?
(CNN)—Two days after he unequivocally backed Indiana's controversial "religious freedom" law as not "discriminatory at all," former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said Wednesday at a private Silicon Valley fundraiser that Indiana could have taken a "better...more consensus-oriented approach."
"By the end of the week, Indiana will be in the right place," Bush said. Indiana lawmakers and Republican Gov. Mike Pence are working to "fix" the law following a nationwide backlash, especially from top businesses.
That seems pretty straightforward to me.
What part of "Impeding the free exercise of religion"
don't you get? :whiste:
If someone's homosexuality is interfering with someone's free exercise of religion,guess who loses?
That's right.There's nothing in law or the Constitution that says you have the right to impose your gayness on people.
duh.
Here..watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reNY3qAtiDw
The Court investigated the history of religious freedom in the United States and quoted a letter from Thomas Jefferson in which he wrote that there was a distinction between religious belief and action that flowed from religious belief. The former "lies solely between man and his God," therefore "the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions." The court considered that if polygamy was allowed, someone might eventually argue that human sacrifice was a necessary part of their religion, and "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." The Court believed the First Amendment forbade Congress from legislating against opinion, but allowed it to legislate against action.
There are now 15 pages, so I can see how you missed my post on this.
Reynolds v. United States
You can express your views, but once that expression is done through actions other than speech, you are limited. You can debate on the morality, but not on the legality.
Dont be dumbasses and pretend like its clear and easy.
Dead link;What was the context?Here is an interview that shows why the "religious freedom" argument is bogus
http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/04...eedom-bill.cnn
Woman towards the end of video will not serve gay couples but will server adulterers.
Her response "gay is a different kind of sin and I don't believe in it"
From what I recall all sin is equal in the eyes of God except for one.
Righties are being bigots and hiding behind religion
Link fixed
Uh-oh!
It could be you, or it could be us, but there's no page here.
It IS clear and easy.
Just because you would make it complicated in order to obfuscate the truth in order to skew interpretation into something other than what it is..
does not make it that way.
It IS clear and easy.
Just because you would make it complicated in order to obfuscate the truth in order to skew interpretation into something other than what it is..
does not make it that way.
That seems pretty straightforward to me.
What part of "Impeding the free exercise of religion"
don't you get? :whiste:
If someone's homosexuality is interfering with someone's free exercise of religion,guess who loses?
That's right.There's nothing in law or the Constitution that says you have the right to impose your gayness on people.
duh.
Here..watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reNY3qAtiDw
look at the url it's truncated.
It IS clear and easy.
Just because you would make it complicated in order to obfuscate the truth in order to skew interpretation into something other than what it is..
does not make it that way.