# In case you missed it



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

I do not look to the government to define and explain creation, to answer the question of why we exist, to explain what happens after I die, or to tell me who was behind it all. Therefore government is not my religion, no matter how many times people say it. Government, through our Constitution, is my shield.....against all totalitarian, controlling, despots; including those who don't know what they are.


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

The only way I can see government being a religion is if you worship the devil.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Why do religious people have to create religions out of nothing for those that are not religious.

Are they not happy they have something special of their own?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wiscto said:


> I do not look to the government to define and explain creation, to answer the question of why we exist, to explain what happens after I die, or to tell me who was behind it all. Therefore government is not my religion, no matter how many times people say it. Government, through our Constitution, is my shield.....against all totalitarian, controlling, despots; including those who don't know what they are.


I like your plan, now how do we get our government officials to join in and govern according to our constitution?


----------



## Oldshep (Mar 28, 2015)

wiscto said:


> I do not look to the government to define and explain creation, to answer the question of why we exist, to explain what happens after I die, or to tell me who was behind it all. Therefore government is not my religion, no matter how many times people say it. Government, through our Constitution, is my shield.....against all totalitarian, controlling, despots; including those who don't know what they are.


Your shield doesn't seem to be working.....just sayin :icecream: Paper shields rarely do


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Oldshep said:


> Your shield doesn't seem to be working.....just sayin :icecream: Paper shields rarely do


Worked just fine when the Supreme Court shot down states rights to needlessly oppress non-believers.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

wiscto said:


> Worked just fine when the Supreme Court shot down states rights to needlessly oppress non-believers.


Worked real well in giving back women the right to control their own body, and again giving everyone the right to marry. Both are still whined about by the control hungry faction.


----------



## Oldshep (Mar 28, 2015)

Didn't work too well when we were brought to war without a declaration, or when warrantless wiretapping and "retro-active immunity" schemes went into effect.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Oldshep brought out a point that wiscto overlooked.
To those of us who believe in a Deity, that One is whom we look to for our protection, not just to answer our questions.
Perhaps that will explain how someone would regard one's faith in a government, as a "religion".
I used to have a certain amount of faith in the government's protection, but that has eroded over time to none at all.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Oldshep said:


> Didn't work too well when we were brought to war without a declaration, or when warrantless wiretapping and "retro-active immunity" schemes went into effect.


Yea. But that wasn't really a religious thing, was it....


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

farmrbrown said:


> Oldshep brought out a point that wiscto overlooked.
> To those of us who believe in a Deity, that One is whom we look to for our protection, not just to answer our questions.
> Perhaps that will explain how someone would regard one's faith in a government, as a "religion".
> I used to have a certain amount of faith in the government's protection, but that has eroded over time to none at all.


Are cops your religion? Is a bodyguard your religion? If government is my religion, it must be yours too unless you plan to dismantle the military and rely on a legion of arc angels. That's absolutely ridiculous and you know it. People here love to talk about "sleazy" politicians and lawyers twisting everything. Right now you're twisting the definition of religion. You KNOW you are. So just stop.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wiscto said:


> Are cops your religion? Is a bodyguard your religion? If government is my religion, it must be yours too unless you plan to dismantle the military and rely on a legion of arc angels. That's absolutely ridiculous and you know it. People here love to talk about "sleazy" politicians and lawyers twisting everything. Right now you're twisting the definition of religion. You KNOW you are. So just stop.


I know what I know, and obviously it isn't the same as your knowledge. I don't begrudge you your beliefs, so why would you tell me to dismiss mine?:shrug:
I merely tried to explain the reasoning to the question you asked, "Why would someone call that my religion?"
If you didn't want an honest answer, please don't attack me for providing one naively.
I have in fact, walked into an arena surrounded by officers of the gov't, medical profession, etc. who indeed had plans for my imprisonment. I did so with a shield of protection unmatched on this earth and walked out unscathed, the most recent one with my wife's granddaughter in tow, exactly as planned.
With a single verse of truth, not premeditated by me but given Divinely in perfect timing, the waters parted before me, so to speak.
What you consider ridiculous, I see as sublime and perfect.

As Painterswife said, "Why wouldn't I be happy with that?"




painterswife said:


> Are they not happy they have something special of their own?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

farmrbrown said:


> I know what I know, and obviously it isn't the same as your knowledge. I don't begrudge you your beliefs, so why would you tell me to dismiss mine?:shrug:
> I have in fact, walked into an arena surrounded by officers of the gov't, medical profession, etc. who indeed had plans for my imprisonment. I did so with a shield of protection unmatched on this earth and walked out unscathed, the most recent one with my wife's granddaughter in tow, exactly as planned.
> With a single verse of truth, not premeditated by me but given Divinely in perfect timing, the waters parted before me, so to speak.
> What you consider ridiculous, I see as sublime and perfect.
> ...


Looks like you missed the point, and nothing you just said makes government a religion.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wiscto said:


> Looks like you missed the point, and nothing you just said makes government a religion.


That's fine by me, and the one who missed the point still doesn't accept the answer, which is also fine.
I hope your shield of protection is enough for you in your hour of need. I know mine is.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

wiscto said:


> I do not look to the government to define and explain creation, to answer the question of why we exist, to explain what happens after I die, or to tell me who was behind it all. Therefore government is not my religion, no matter how many times people say it. Government, through our Constitution, is my shield.....against all totalitarian, controlling, despots; including those who don't know what they are.


 
You may not look to it to explain such things, but, it does a fair amount of trying to explain those things.

Bureaucrats created the universe.
We exist to be taxed and to be cannon fodder for wars
After you die, you are taxed, and vote for Democratic candidates. 
The Clintons are behind it all. :bouncy:


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

farmrbrown said:


> That's fine by me, and the one who missed the point still doesn't accept the answer, which is also fine.
> I hope your shield of protection is enough for you in your hour of need. I know mine is.


I only need it to shield me from you and the rest of the religious fundamentalists.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Farmerga said:


> You may not look to it to explain such things, but, it does a fair amount of trying to explain those things.
> 
> Bureaucrats created the universe.
> We exist to be taxed and to be cannon fodder for wars
> ...


Now you're just talking out of your backside. The government isn't a religion. Your religion is a religion. The government says your religion holds no power over me unless I choose that path. I don't. Your Christian values are yours alone. My neighbor's Christian values are his alone. That's how it works in this country. If you don't like it, I hear the Middle East is big on theocracy.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

"Government, through our Constitution, is my shield"
The Constitution is the shield against the government.


----------



## edcopp (Oct 9, 2004)

As long as Liberty is not removed from the picture, I can think for myself concerning government.

Looks like the tree of Liberty needs to be "watered".


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

FourDeuce said:


> "Government, through our Constitution, is my shield"
> The Constitution is the shield against the government.


Yea yea yea yea. The Constitution also empowers the government to act on our behalf to protect the liberties provided by the Constitution. The courts are the government, remember? I'm not just protected from the government. I'm protected from people, especially fundamentalist theocrats. 



edcopp said:


> As long as Liberty is not removed from the picture, I can think for myself concerning government.
> 
> Looks like the tree of Liberty needs to be "watered".


:goodjob:


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wiscto said:


> I only need it to shield me from you and the rest of the religious fundamentalists.


I'm not sure why that thought would ever occur to you.
I like to keep to myself way out in the hills, but I come running to protect a friend, neighbor or family. That's an integral part of my particular "fundamentalism". I've never threatened you and tried to deflect some of your acrimony that gets directed at "people like me". 
If you like your gov't, that's fine. It's not my cup of tea.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

farmrbrown said:


> I'm not sure why that thought would ever occur to you.
> I like to keep to myself way out in the hills, but I come running to protect a friend, neighbor or family. That's an integral part of my particular "fundamentalism". I've never threatened you and tried to deflect some of your acrimony that gets directed at "people like me".
> If you like your gov't, that's fine. It's not my cup of tea.


By defining my political/social/philosophical beliefs as religion, you threaten to set them outside the bounds of participation in my secular government....along with yours. It's the latest craze for budding theocracy lovers. It's justification for silencing people you don't agree with. And it's wrong. It's obvious that it isn't religion, and it's dangerous to everyone's freedom claim that it is. You stepped into the argument, so here we are.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

wiscto said:


> Now you're just talking out of your backside. The government isn't a religion. Your religion is a religion. The government says your religion holds no power over me unless I choose that path. I don't. Your Christian values are yours alone. My neighbor's Christian values are his alone. That's how it works in this country. If you don't like it, I hear the Middle East is big on theocracy.


Wow!! I was sure that the jumping emoge would make it clear that I was posting in a jovial manner.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wiscto said:


> By defining my political/social/philosophical beliefs as religion, you threaten to set them outside the bounds of participation in my secular government....along with yours. It's the latest craze for budding theocracy lovers. It's justification for silencing people you don't agree with. And it's wrong. It's obvious that it isn't religion, and it's dangerous to everyone's freedom claim that it is. You stepped into the argument, so here we are.


If you say so.
Ever hear of the 1st amendment?
I would have thought after reading it, you would find even more comfort and protection in that point of view.
Guess not.:shrug:

Like I said, I don't worry about any "threats" made towards me, I have "unbelievable" back up.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

farmrbrown said:


> If you say so.
> Ever hear of the 1st amendment?
> I would have thought after reading it, you would find even more comfort and protection in that point of view.
> Guess not.:shrug:
> ...


What threats made toward you? What are you talking about? You still think you'll never need any help from cops or armies? Okay... I dare you to move into downtown Chicago, or better yet, Raqqa Syria.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wiscto said:


> What threats made toward you? What are you talking about? You still think you'll never need any help from cops or armies? Okay... I dare you to move into downtown Chicago, or better yet, Raqqa Syria.



No, you mentioned that I was a threat to you, and I replied that I wasn't worried by any.
I've been to Chicago and other urban centers, but don't plan any trips to Syria.
I wouldn't move to any of them for all the tea in China.
And no, I don't need help from the army or the cops, and haven't received any the few times I asked.
No need to repeat foolish mistakes.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

farmrbrown said:


> No, you mentioned that I was a threat to you, and I replied that I wasn't worried by any.
> I've been to Chicago and other urban centers, but don't plan any trips to Syria.
> I wouldn't move to any of them for all the tea in China.
> And no, I don't need help from the army or the cops, and haven't received any the few times I asked.
> No need to repeat foolish mistakes.


Do you really need me to repeat it? Trying to silence people you don't agree with and cut their views out of government by claiming that it's their "religion" is dangerous to freedom.

I've _been_ to Chicago. Go live there. You have nothing to fear, right? You don't need laws, government, constitutions, or protected freedoms... Prove it.


----------



## BlackFeather (Jun 17, 2014)

The only thing I can think of is the USSR. Formal religion was discouraged and the state sought to be the lord over the common man. The common man may not have thought government was religion but the government seemed to think they fulfilled that role. China was the same way under chairman Mao. Both promoted atheism so the people would only be loyal to and ideally worship the communist state. I bet there were some idealistic youth who worshiped the state only to become disillusioned later in life. Since what a man worships could be considered a religion, I guess you could say for some the government is a religion.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

BlackFeather said:


> The only thing I can think of is the USSR. Formal religion was discouraged and the state sought to be the lord over the common man. The common man may not have thought government was religion but the government seemed to think they fulfilled that role. China was the same way under chairman Mao. Both promoted atheism so the people would only be loyal to and ideally worship the communist state. I bet there were some idealistic youth who worshiped the state only to become disillusioned later in life. Since what a man worships could be considered a religion, I guess you could say for some the government is a religion.


You're on the wrong planet. I'm not talking about government discouraging formal religion. I'm TELLING you that our system of government is set up to protect me from your formal religion. You can have all the Christ in your life you want, you have no authority to leverage your beliefs over me. I don't care if we're Libertarian minimal government control tomorrow, their number 1 job is still to protect my religious freedom.....from overbearing Christians, for the most part, although some Muslims have begun to express some Sharia views. If you really can't comprehend secular government. If you really think that what I'm saying is comparable to any of the people you just brought up. You have completely failed to comprehend this thread.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Freedom of religion

Not
Freedom from religion

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


Freedom of weather means the government cannot control it. It's all around freely happening.

Freedom from weather means you have to remove yourself from it ...stay indoors. What ever you personally need to do to escape the hated scary weather and the government cannot stop the weather if you are offended.


----------



## Raeven (Oct 11, 2011)

"Religion and government will BOTH exist in greater purity the LESS they are mixed together.&#8221; - James Madison


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

kasilofhome said:


> Freedom of religion
> 
> Not
> Freedom from religion
> ...


You understand that I can't have freedom of religion unless I am free FROM your religion, right? That's just the way the world works. If the government shows favor to your religious views, they are infringing on my right to not adhere to any religion at all... If they force us all to accept your views of marriage, and your understanding of creation, that is called oppression. If the state does it....it's still oppression. So when the Supreme Court tells a state or the Congress to back off, THEY'RE IN THE RIGHT.


----------



## FourDeuce (Jun 27, 2002)

wiscto said:


> Yea yea yea yea. The Constitution also empowers the government to act on our behalf to protect the liberties provided by the Constitution. The courts are the government, remember? I'm not just protected from the government. I'm protected from people, especially fundamentalist theocrats.
> 
> 
> 
> :goodjob:


The courts are PART of the government. They're also part of the "checks & balances" idea.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

FourDeuce said:


> *The courts are PART of the government.*


You know what I meant...


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wiscto said:


> Do you really need me to repeat it? Trying to silence people you don't agree with and cut their views out of government by claiming that it's their "religion" is dangeroues to freedom.
> 
> I've _been_ to Chicago. Go live there. You have nothing to fear, right? You don't need laws, government, constitutions, or protected freedoms... Prove it.


I haven't tried to silence you or anyone else, I ain't moving to Chicago for love nor money, and I don't have to prove nuthin' to you.
SEE YA!

( I am going to Cleveland this weekend. Prolly have to bring my own grits, damit.)


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

kasilofhome said:


> Freedom of religion
> 
> Not
> Freedom from religion
> ...


Post of the day award.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

wiscto said:


> You understand that I can't have freedom of religion unless I am free FROM your religion, right? That's just the way the world works. If the government shows favor to your religious views, they are infringing on my right to not adhere to any religion at all... If they force us all to accept your views of marriage, and your understanding of creation, that is called oppression. If the state does it....it's still oppression. So when the Supreme Court tells a state or the Congress to back off, THEY'RE IN THE RIGHT.


Real World Award


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

wiscto said:


> You understand that I can't have freedom of religion unless I am free FROM your religion, right? That's just the way the world works. If the government shows favor to your religious views, they are infringing on my right to not adhere to any religion at all... If they force us all to accept your views of marriage, and your understanding of creation, that is called oppression. If the state does it....it's still oppression. So when the Supreme Court tells a state or the Congress to back off, THEY'RE IN THE RIGHT.


Sorry bud.. but you need to read the doc and historical books..

What you want it to be was not written that way bullies just interpret it that way ....

In America per the constitution you have to face being offended... public control was not the goal..


----------



## partndn (Jun 18, 2009)

kasilofhome said:


> Sorry bud.. but you need to read the doc and historical books..
> 
> What you want it to be was not written that way bullies just interpret it that way ....
> 
> *In America per the constitution you have to face being offended..*. public control was not the goal..


Thank you! That is the truth that is usually missing in these discussions.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Little is jumpier than an Agitated Atheist. Gives real meaning to fear of God.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

wiscto said:


> You understand that I can't have freedom of religion unless I am free FROM your religion, right? That's just the way the world works. If the government shows favor to your religious views, they are infringing on my right to not adhere to any religion at all... If they force us all to accept your views of marriage, and your understanding of creation, that is called oppression. If the state does it....it's still oppression. So when the Supreme Court tells a state or the Congress to back off, THEY'RE IN THE RIGHT.


 
Are they not "forcing" Christians, as well as other people of faith, to accept views that are contrary to their beliefs? How is that not oppression?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Farmerga said:


> Are they not "forcing" Christians, as well as other people of faith, to accept views that are contrary to their beliefs? How is that not oppression?


See that's the problem. You don't get it. In order for the government to be fair, they have to be secular. In order to be an American, you have to accept that people have the right to be as gay as they want here. They aren't passing laws to ban YOUR view of marriage. You can still go to your church and do whatever the #@$# you want. No one was oppressing Kim Davis, either. She was offered an alternative by her employers and she refused, because she wanted control. No one is asking you to accept the gay point of view. No one is asking you to be gay. No one is forcing you to go to their weddings. No one can even make you look at them. But you have absolutely no right to tell them what they can and cannot do when their mere existence is of no real consequence or direct harm to anyone. RELIGION cannot be a decisive factor in government when we all have our OWN.... That is the only way this works. Otherwise you might as well not have a country, and we might as well all just step aside and let our enemies wipe us out and take everything we have.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

kasilofhome said:


> Sorry bud.. but you need to read the doc and historical books..
> 
> What you want it to be was not written that way bullies just interpret it that way ....
> 
> In America per the constitution you have to face being offended... public control was not the goal..



Yup you have to face being offended, it just can't be legislated.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

wiscto said:


> See that's the problem. You don't get it. In order for the government to be fair, they have to be secular. In order to be an American, you have to accept that people have the right to be as gay as they want here. They aren't passing laws to ban YOUR view of marriage. You can still go to your church and do whatever the #@$# you want. No one was oppressing Kim Davis, either. She was offered an alternative by her employers and she refused, because she wanted control. No one is asking you to accept the gay point of view. No one is asking you to be gay. No one is forcing you to go to their weddings. No one can even make you look at them. But you have absolutely no right to tell them what they can and cannot do when their mere existence is of no real consequence or direct harm to anyone. RELIGION cannot be a decisive factor in government when we all have our OWN.... That is the only way this works. Otherwise you might as well not have a country, and we might as well all just step aside and let our enemies wipe us out and take everything we have.


 For one thing, don't tell me what I "don't get". For another, don't tell me what I believe and don't believe. I simply offered a counter to your point. 
Personally, I don't have a problem with gays involving government in their unions. It makes no never mind to me. 

I do not wish for my tax money to be used for things that I find repulsive and wrong. It matters not if those beliefs come from religious teachings, secular thinking, or, drug induced visions. 

That is the problem. People what the government to be for them and be against their enemies. The founders vision of a government that keeps people from harming each other but, otherwise leaves them alone would be the best form of government.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Farmerga said:


> For one thing, don't tell me what I "don't get". For another, don't tell me what I believe and don't believe. I simply offered a counter to your point.
> Personally, I don't have a problem with gays involving government in their unions. It makes no never mind to me.
> 
> I do not wish for my tax money to be used for things that I find repulsive and wrong. It matters not if those beliefs come from religious teachings, secular thinking, or, drug induced visions.
> ...


I did tell you what you don't get, because you don't get it. Don't tell me what the Founders believed. I doubt you've read nearly enough of what they said... Rights, freedom, and liberty were extremely important to them. They would consider an infringement upon those rights to be harm. When someone uses the government to enforce a religious belief with NO physical earthly evidence to support themselves, just their faith, that is oppression by force of religion. Period.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

wiscto said:


> See that's the problem. You don't get it. In order for the government to be fair, they have to be secular. In order to be an American, you have to accept that people have the right to be as gay as they want here. They aren't passing laws to ban YOUR view of marriage. You can still go to your church and do whatever the #@$# you want. No one was oppressing Kim Davis, either. She was offered an alternative by her employers and she refused, because she wanted control. No one is asking you to accept the gay point of view. No one is asking you to be gay. No one is forcing you to go to their weddings. No one can even make you look at them. But you have absolutely no right to tell them what they can and cannot do when their mere existence is of no real consequence or direct harm to anyone. RELIGION cannot be a decisive factor in government when we all have our OWN.... That is the only way this works. Otherwise you might as well not have a country, and we might as well all just step aside and let our enemies wipe us out and take everything we have.


Why do you feel government needs to be involved with relationships period end of story. Explain


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

kasilofhome said:


> Why do you feel government needs to be involved with relationships period end of story. Explain


I don't. And I've said that dozens of times around here. Period end of story.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

wiscto said:


> I did tell you what you don't get, because you don't get it. Don't tell me what the Founders believed. I doubt you've read nearly enough of what they said... Rights, freedom, and liberty were extremely important to them. They would consider an infringement upon those rights to be harm. When someone uses the government to enforce a religious belief with NO physical earthly evidence to support themselves, just their faith, that is oppression by force of religion. Period.


 Check your anger and read the last sentence of what I wrote. (I would say "re-read" but it is obvious that you didn't read it yet)


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Farmerga said:


> Check your anger and read the last sentence of what I wrote. (I would say "re-read" but it is obvious that you didn't read it yet)


Oooo now you're telling me how I feel? LOL Man the hypocrisy of the logic in this place is just downright sad. 

And as always, you're wrong, about absolutely everything you just said. I read your last sentence, and if you can't tell that from what I wrote, then you obviously just aren't going to understand anything today, at all.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

wiscto said:


> Oooo now you're telling me how I feel? LOL Man the hypocrisy of the logic in this place is just downright sad.
> 
> And as always, you're wrong, about absolutely everything you just said. I read your last sentence, and if you can't tell that from what I wrote, then you obviously just aren't going to understand anything today, at all.


 OK, how am I wrong? The founders were not concerned about liberty? Because that is what I said. A government that keeps people from harming each other and, otherwise leaves them alone, is not the most liberty enhancing form of government? No, you sir, do not understand. Government is the antithesis of freedom and Liberty. It is, at best, a necessary evil. You seem to want government to enforce YOUR vision of what is right. You don't seem to get the idea that government force is government force, no matter if you wield it, or, Westborough Baptist church wields it.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wiscto said:


> By defining my political/social/philosophical beliefs as religion, you threaten to set them outside the bounds of participation in my secular government....along with yours. It's the latest craze for budding theocracy lovers. It's justification for silencing people you don't agree with. And it's wrong. It's obvious that it isn't religion, and it's dangerous to everyone's freedom claim that it is. You stepped into the argument, so here we are.


Do you not find what you just posted to be a bit odd seeing as how its been your secular government which has been the one silencing people it doesn't agree with? We have hate speech laws, hate crime laws, anti-discrimination laws and others all being applied to private citizens. All trying to make so that all the subjects march to the same drum beat and that drum is being beaten by the government. You may not like someone's views but do you not think those who do should have the right to express it and live their lives according to their beliefs in their private lives without the threat of government interference?

The government should not take one side over another it should treat all as equal. Once it stops doing that and pushing its own belief system it becomes just as much as a religion as any other group.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

All hail Caesar.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wiscto said:


> You're on the wrong planet. I'm not talking about government discouraging formal religion. I'm TELLING you that our system of government is set up to protect me from your formal religion.


There's your problem, you don't understand just what the 1st amendment actually says. It does not offer protection from religion, it offers protection of religion from attacks from the federal government.




wiscto said:


> You can have all the Christ in your life you want, you have no authority to leverage your beliefs over me.


I have no governmental authority and in that way no way to legally enforce my beliefs on you. Which is the way it should be. It should also be that you have no governmental authority and no way to legally force me to stop acting on my belief system. But that is not the way it is. We have seen cases where the government has used to enforce its beliefs on others, e.g. Christian bakers told they must make a cake or face fines and/or lose their business.




wiscto said:


> If you really can't comprehend secular government. If you really think that what I'm saying is comparable to any of the people you just brought up. You have completely failed to comprehend this thread.


I can comprehend one its just that we don't have one.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wiscto said:


> See that's the problem. You don't get it. In order for the government to be fair, they have to be secular. In order to be an American, you have to accept that people have the right to be as gay as they want here. They aren't passing laws to ban YOUR view of marriage. You can still go to your church and do whatever the #@$# you want. No one was oppressing Kim Davis, either. She was offered an alternative by her employers and she refused, because she wanted control. No one is asking you to accept the gay point of view. No one is asking you to be gay. No one is forcing you to go to their weddings. No one can even make you look at them. But you have absolutely no right to tell them what they can and cannot do when their mere existence is of no real consequence or direct harm to anyone. RELIGION cannot be a decisive factor in government when we all have our OWN.... That is the only way this works. Otherwise you might as well not have a country, and we might as well all just step aside and let our enemies wipe us out and take everything we have.


The government has the power to force you through intimidation to violate your belief system if that belief system does not align with its current belief system. That's nothing new its just that there are more and more people who do not agree the governmental beliefs. And that's not new either, the latest good example was back in the 60s when more and more people thought the government's belief that blacks were third class people was wrong. We stood up and tried to do the right thing.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> Are they not "forcing" Christians, as well as other people of faith, to accept views that are contrary to their beliefs? How is that not oppression?


What have you been forced to "accept"?
I'm not seeing any "acceptance"


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

watcher said:


> There's your problem, you don't understand just what the 1st amendment actually says. It does not offer protection from religion, it offers protection of religion from attacks from the federal government.


Yes. Good job. You're _almost_ there. If the First Amendment protects peoples religious views from the government, then the government cannot favor one religious view over another..................because that would constitute an attack on someone's religious beliefs. If my religious belief is that I shall consent to no religion, then the government would be attacking my beliefs by making someone's religious views lawful in any way shape or form. FOR EXAMPLE. Gay marriage bans.

It really isn't that difficult.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

watcher said:


> The government has the power to force you through intimidation to violate your belief system if that belief system does not align with its current belief system. That's nothing new its just that there are more and more people who do not agree the governmental beliefs. *And that's not new either, the latest good example was back in the 60s when more and more people thought the government's belief that blacks were third class people was wrong. We stood up and tried to do the right thing.*


You're not talking about religion anymore. Try to stay on topic.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

HDRider said:


> All hail Caesar.


Powerful. Riveting. So much so that you've convinced yourself that secularists are victimizing you by refusing to let you control the government, and all of us....through the government. The irony of everything you stand for is just disappointing. Picture Caesar mocking himself for being a dictator. That's how I see you.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

wiscto said:


> You're not talking about religion anymore. Try to stay on topic.


Freedom of... Very important


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

kasilofhome said:


> Freedom of... Very important


Oh go back and read, I already countered that weak argument. And why don't you all really delve deep into your hearts... Why is it that you don't want us all to be free from your religion. Think about that. Because you want what.... You want the government to be a theocracy. Too late though, we already have freedom from religion, by default. Because the government can't infringe upon my religious views that I will have no religion, and by turning your religious principals into law, they are doing just that.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

wiscto said:


> Oh go back and read, I already countered that weak argument. And why don't you all really delve deep into your hearts... Why is it that you don't want us all to be free from your religion. Think about that. Because you want what.... You want the government to be a theocracy. Too late though, we already have freedom from religion, by default. Because the government can't infringe upon my religious views that I will have no religion, and by turning your religious principals into law, they are doing just that.


Yup, christian sharia law.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Because it unconstitutional.

Take a class learn about it.. it is really simple.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wiscto said:


> Yes. Good job. You're _almost_ there. If the First Amendment protects peoples religious views from the government, then the government cannot favor one religious view over another..................because that would constitute an attack on someone's religious beliefs. If my religious belief is that I shall consent to no religion, then the government would be attacking my beliefs by making someone's religious views lawful in any way shape or form. FOR EXAMPLE. Gay marriage bans.
> 
> It really isn't that difficult.


I have no problem with a blind government, AAMOF I have supported and pushed for it for decades. The problem I have is when government steps into PRIVATE matters. There's a big difference in a the government saying that the government can not forbid a gay from obtaining a government service and the government saying that a private citizen can not refuse to sell his private property or service to a gay. One is freedom the other is oppression.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wiscto said:


> You're not talking about religion anymore. Try to stay on topic.


Try reading it again you seem to have missed the point. What is "religion"? Is not one definition having a core belief or group of beliefs which one uses to guide his life? If you are a racist and your core beliefs are that non-purple people are lesser beings and should not have the same rights, privileges and/or protections of purple people is that not part if not all of your religion?

Whenever the government uses its power to force compliance to promotes one belief system over another that promoted belief becomes, in effect, the state religion.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wiscto said:


> Oh go back and read, I already countered that weak argument. And why don't you all really delve deep into your hearts... Why is it that you don't want us all to be free from your religion. Think about that. Because you want what.... You want the government to be a theocracy. Too late though, we already have freedom from religion, by default. Because the government can't infringe upon my religious views that I will have no religion, and by turning your religious principals into law, they are doing just that.


Ok, let us take it to the extreme. Would you say that welfare laws should be eliminated because they are based on the teachings of many religions of helping those in need?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

As I have pointed out over and over the problems are two fold.

1) When the government uses its power to interfere with a private citizen's ability to live according to his religious beliefs when those beliefs in no way interfere with the rights of another. 1a) No one has a right to anything which must be provided by or taken from another.

2) When the government uses its power to promote and/or support one belief system over another.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

watcher said:


> I have no problem with a blind government, AAMOF I have supported and pushed for it for decades. The problem I have is when government steps into PRIVATE matters. There's a big difference in a the government saying that the government can not forbid a gay from obtaining a government service and the government saying that a private citizen can not refuse to sell his private property or service to a gay. One is freedom the other is oppression.


But I'm on record in this forum of supporting the rights of the baker... So...



watcher said:


> Try reading it again you seem to have missed the point. What is "religion"? Is not one definition having a core belief or group of beliefs which one uses to guide his life? If you are a racist and your core beliefs are that non-purple people are lesser beings and should not have the same rights, privileges and/or protections of purple people is that not part if not all of your religion?
> 
> Whenever the government uses its power to force compliance to promotes one belief system over another that promoted belief becomes, in effect, the state religion.


You try reading again. You seem to have missed my point, entirely. Religion is a core system of beliefs involving a higher power, a deity, and an explanation for all things non-religious folks don't believe can be explained. So. For example. Life begins when the soul enters the body... That is an attempt to create a law based on a religious principal. 



watcher said:


> Ok, let us take it to the extreme. Would you say that welfare laws should be eliminated because they are based on the teachings of many religions of helping those in need?


First of all... Welfare laws are not based on religious teachings just because you say they are. Nothing could be further from the truth. The desire to help those in need has existed in humanity from the beginning, to varying degrees of course. The notion that it's a strictly religious tenet isn't just laughable, it's abuse of reality. It's a lie. You can go back to any ancient civilization you want and here is a version of it. The grain doll was quite popular in Rome. Eventually abused, just like welfare, but extremely helpful to those were starving in the streets when it was first created.



watcher said:


> As I have pointed out over and over the problems are two fold.
> 
> 1) When the government uses its power to interfere with a private citizen's ability to live according to his religious beliefs when those beliefs in no way interfere with the rights of another. 1a) No one has a right to anything which must be provided by or taken from another.
> 
> 2) When the government uses its power to promote and/or support one belief system over another.


Yea yea yea. Keep talking. How do you feel about not preventing Muslims from doing as their beliefs tell them in this country? It's really too bad that you have to flip flop from one side of the argument to the other depending on the situation. 

There are beliefs that exist outside the confines of religion. Y'all don't want to accept that, but it's a fact. Y'all want to rewrite the definition of religion so that any belief is a religion, so that y'all can have your way. But it's just the lie you're telling yourselves.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> There's your problem, you don't understand just what the 1st amendment actually says. It does not offer protection from religion, it offers protection of religion from attacks from the federal government.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


your Christian baker was not penalized for not baking cakes.... He was penalized for refusing to sell a cake. Discrimination in business transactions is not cool, nor allowed no matter your religious affiliation. But you know that already..... Or should.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wiscto said:


> You try reading again. You seem to have missed my point, entirely. Religion is a core system of beliefs involving a higher power, a deity, and an explanation for all things non-religious folks don't believe can be explained. So. For example. Life begins when the soul enters the body... That is an attempt to create a law based on a religious principal.


A higher power such as the "will of the people" as seen by a government? Explanations for things that can't be explained; dark matter, Higgs boson. Yeah, government and science are clearly don't have anything in common with religion.

Actually the greatest argument against allowing abortion is a two logical scientific facts, no one knows when life begins and a fetus' DNA is different than its mother and therefore can not be considered just a mass of HER tissue.

Now a question for you. What are laws based on?




wiscto said:


> First of all... Welfare laws are not based on religious teachings just because you say they are. Nothing could be further from the truth. The desire to help those in need has existed in humanity from the beginning, to varying degrees of course. The notion that it's a strictly religious tenet isn't just laughable, it's abuse of reality. It's a lie. You can go back to any ancient civilization you want and here is a version of it. The grain doll was quite popular in Rome. Eventually abused, just like welfare, but extremely helpful to those were starving in the streets when it was first created.


Again if you go through history you will see that most of the giving of a helping hand has been based on religious teachings. AAMOF, if you read history you will find that w/o those religious teachings humans are selfish and quite willing to let their fellow man suffer.

Heck if you don't see government's as religions you will discover that they have killed way more people than all the religions put together. Look at just the last 100 years how many millions of people did governments of Germany, the USSR, China, Japan and Cambodia kill?




wiscto said:


> Yea yea yea. Keep talking. How do you feel about not preventing Muslims from doing as their beliefs tell them in this country? It's really too bad that you have to flip flop from one side of the argument to the other depending on the situation.


As I have pointed out as long as a person's religious beliefs do not interfere with another's rights more power to them. 




wiscto said:


> There are beliefs that exist outside the confines of religion. Y'all don't want to accept that, but it's a fact. Y'all want to rewrite the definition of religion so that any belief is a religion, so that y'all can have your way. But it's just the lie you're telling yourselves.


It all depends on how you define religion. I disagree with your definition and it seems dictionary.com does as well. Note in the 1st definition it uses the words "especially" and "usually" which means the conditions set after those words are not required for something to meet the definition.

_
Religion, noun:

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.:

5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:_


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> your Christian baker was not penalized for not baking cakes.... He was penalized for refusing to sell a cake. Discrimination in business transactions is not cool, nor allowed no matter your religious affiliation. But you know that already..... Or should.


He was penalized for trying to control his private goods and his personal labor based on his religious beliefs when those beliefs were not inline with the beliefs of the government.

The only reason its "not cool" is because some people don't like his belief system and according to them and the government, a person loses his private property rights as soon as such property is offered for sale. I disagree because I believe in freedom. So as long as a transaction has not been completed then property is belongs to the seller and he may sell or refuse to sell based any reason at all. Its none of the government's business. 

Heck if you give it the power to tell you that you HAVE TO SELL something or face the full force of the government it could some day have the power to tell you HAVE TO BUY something or face the full force of the government. Oh wait, that's already happened with Obamacare. I wonder what power it will discover it has next. Telling you what size light bulb you can and can't buy. How much water you need to flush your toilet with. How big of a house you are allowed to live in. What foods you are allowed to eat.

But hey if you like having the government having the power to tell you how to live, that's fine with me. Just don't force me to follow that belief system.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> your Christian baker was not penalized for not baking cakes.... He was penalized for refusing to sell a cake. Discrimination in business transactions is not cool, nor allowed no matter your religious affiliation. But you know that already..... Or should.


What's another word for a person forced to labor?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

kasilofhome said:


> What's another word for a person forced to labor?


Another laughable comparison.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> He was penalized for trying to control his private goods and his personal labor based on his religious beliefs when those beliefs were not inline with the beliefs of the government.
> 
> The only reason its "not cool" is because some people don't like his belief system and according to them and the government, a person loses his private property rights as soon as such property is offered for sale. I disagree because I believe in freedom. So as long as a transaction has not been completed then property is belongs to the seller and he may sell or refuse to sell based any reason at all. Its none of the government's business.
> 
> ...


im with you being against forcing people to buy any product or service they do not want.... We do differ when it comes to refusing to sell a product advertised for sale to the public and a normal part of ones business to anyone who walks thru your doors and passes all legal qualifiers to be able to purchase said product.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

delete


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

watcher said:


> A higher power such as the "will of the people" as seen by a government? Explanations for things that can't be explained; dark matter, Higgs boson. Yeah, government and science are clearly don't have anything in common with religion.
> 
> Actually the greatest argument against allowing abortion is a two logical scientific facts, no one knows when life begins and a fetus' DNA is different than its mother and therefore can not be considered just a mass of HER tissue.
> 
> ...


1. Science again. You people really just don't get it, do you... Science is based on what can be observed. It is not an attempt to explain why or who, it isn't describing a "higher power." It's describing what we see. And it is rooted in observable phenomenon rather than something people cannot prove or disprove. "Will of the people..." Thanks for the laugh. 

2. Cute definition you found there. The etymology of the word comes from a Middle English word "religoun" which is derived from an Anglo-French variation of the Latin word "religio" meaning *"supernatural constraint."* 
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion



> 1
> a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>
> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance


That is the traditional, recognized definition of religion, and everyone knows it. That's why it is the primary definition. That's why it means what it means in this context. Despite a couple hundred years of pro-theocracy lawyer talk and creative literature.

Political philosophy is not religion. 

If all political belief systems are religion, than we can have no Constitution, we can have no government, and we can have no peace. You KNOW that. They are not the same. Because if they were, then the Constitution is a religious belief and nothing you're talking about matters.....none of us are protected.......we'll just sort it out democratically and the losers will cry and call Democracy a religion and then refuse to accept the results, just like they have been. You can put a bounty on our heads like some *nutcase* recently told me, but it's over, this country is never going back to the good old days when y'all told us how to live.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

kasilofhome said:


> What's another word for a person forced to labor?


Back in the sixties and seventies of last century we called those guys "soldiers". In spite of the thirteenth amendment that supposedly forbade any such nonsense. Anther fine case of our governments failure to abide by their own rules.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

kasilofhome said:


> What's another word for a person *forced to labor*?


A mother who couldn't get an abortion?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

And slavery is no longer in liberal language... not pc. 
In liberal reality..........


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

watcher said:


> Try reading it again you seem to have missed the point. *What is "religion"*? Is not one definition having a core belief or group of beliefs which one uses to guide his life? *If you are a racist* and your core beliefs are that non-purple people are lesser beings and should not have the same rights, privileges and/or protections of purple people is that not part if not all of your religion?
> 
> Whenever the government uses its power to force compliance to promotes one belief system over another that promoted belief becomes, in effect, the state religion.


None of that is "religion" in any normal context.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/religion


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

kasilofhome said:


> And slavery is no longer in *liberal* language... not pc.
> In *liberal* reality..........


Don't be hatin' 
:nono:


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> What have you been forced to "accept"?
> I'm not seeing any "acceptance"


My tax money goes to a great number of things that I find abhorrent and, in reality, are obviously illegal.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wiscto said:


> Another laughable comparison.


I guess you don't think requiring someone to preform "community service" in order to graduate is akin to forced labor either.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> im with you being against forcing people to buy any product or service they do not want.... We do differ when it comes to refusing to sell a product advertised for sale to the public and a normal part of ones business to anyone who walks thru your doors and passes all legal qualifiers to be able to purchase said product.


So you think the government shouldn't have the power to force you to buy something you don't want to buy but you do think it should have the power to sell something you do not want to sell. I've very confused.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> So you think the government shouldn't have the power to force you to buy something you don't want to buy but you do think it should have the power to sell something you do not want to sell. I've very confused.


By opening your business to the public and advertising your goods and services for sale to that public you have expressed your willingness to sell those things. The government isn't forcing you to do anything you haven't willingly offered to do. It's been pointed out numerous times that businesses are free to discriminate. Businesses do it legally every day. They just cannot promise not to do so then proceed to do so. Honesty in business practices is important.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wiscto said:


> 1. Science again. You people really just don't get it, do you... Science is based on what can be observed. It is not an attempt to explain why or who, it isn't describing a "higher power." It's describing what we see. And it is rooted in observable phenomenon rather than something people cannot prove or disprove. "Will of the people..." Thanks for the laugh.


Really? You can observe the speed of light in deep space? Or do you just "believe" it travels at the speed you want it to?




wiscto said:


> 2. Cute definition you found there. The etymology of the word comes from a Middle English word "religoun" which is derived from an Anglo-French variation of the Latin word "religio" meaning *"supernatural constraint."*
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion


I find it strange you didn't post the ENTIRE definition. Did you stop reading once you saw the part which supports your view of things? You should have kept reading. Allow me to post the complete definition from the link you used.
_
Full Definition of RELIGION

1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness

4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
â reÂ·liÂ·gionÂ·less adjective_

Now if you read past #1 you will see that 3 of the 4 definitions have no mention of a god or the supernatural. You will also note that in two it specifically says beliefs. Therefore you can have a religion based on beliefs and not a supernatural god. 




wiscto said:


> That is the traditional, recognized definition of religion, and everyone knows it. That's why it is the primary definition. That's why it means what it means in this context. Despite a couple hundred years of pro-theocracy lawyer talk and creative literature.


That's ONE of the recognized definition of religion and the one you wish to use. But as a man of science you should know that just because its traditional doesn't mean its correct and just because it lines up with what you want doesn't mean its the only way.





wiscto said:


> If all political belief systems are religion, than we can have no Constitution, we can have no government, and we can have no peace. You KNOW that. They are not the same. Because if they were, then the Constitution is a religious belief and nothing you're talking about matters.....none of us are protected.......we'll just sort it out democratically and the losers will cry and call Democracy a religion and then refuse to accept the results, just like they have been. You can put a bounty on our heads like some *nutcase* recently told me, but it's over, this country is never going back to the good old days when y'all told us how to live.


Political systems have all the necessary items to be considered religion. Would you not say that a government is an institutionalized system of beliefs, and practices and a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith? Throughout history a lot of people who believed in their government system so much they are/were willing to kill and die for it. Heck there's a lot of what you would call religions out there that don't have that kind following believers.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Back in the sixties and seventies of last century we called those guys "soldiers". In spite of the thirteenth amendment that supposedly forbade any such nonsense. Anther fine case of our governments failure to abide by their own rules.


So you admit making someone preform an action they do not wish to preform even if they are paid for that action is wrong.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> None of that is "religion" in any normal context.
> 
> http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/religion


Read 1.1 and 1.2 and you will see.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> By opening your business to the public and advertising your goods and services for sale to that public you have expressed your willingness to sell those things. The government isn't forcing you to do anything you haven't willingly offered to do. It's been pointed out numerous times that businesses are free to discriminate. Businesses do it legally every day. They just cannot promise not to do so then proceed to do so. Honesty in business practices is important.


Ok so I've expressed a willingness to sell them. Now what if I don't have a willingness to sell to specifically to you? Should the government have the power to force me to sell it to you?

Look at it from the other direction. Say you walk into a bakery and tell a baker you want to buy a cake and are 'willing' to buy one. After looking around you leave w/o buying. The next day you are served a summons saying you are being sued because you failed to buy a cake after saying you wanted to buy one and showed your 'willingness' to buy a cake. The reason that you didn't want to buy a cake from him doesn't matter what does matter is that you singled him out to not buy from even though you said you wanted to buy and were willing to do so. It sounds crazy when you look it from the other side doesn't it? 

The biggest problem comes from the fact you can't violate someone's right when that right does not exist. You have no right to anything which must be provided to you by another. You have no more right to buy a cake someone doesn't want to sell you than someone has the right to make you buy a cake you don't really want.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> Ok so I've expressed a willingness to sell them. Now what if I don't have a willingness to sell to specifically to you? Should the government have the power to force me to sell it to you?
> 
> Look at it from the other direction. Say you walk into a bakery and tell a baker you want to buy a cake and are 'willing' to buy one. After looking around you leave w/o buying. The next day you are served a summons saying you are being sued because you failed to buy a cake after saying you wanted to buy one and showed your 'willingness' to buy a cake. The reason that you didn't want to buy a cake from him doesn't matter what does matter is that you singled him out to not buy from even though you said you wanted to buy and were willing to do so. It sounds crazy when you look it from the other side doesn't it?
> 
> The biggest problem comes from the fact you can't violate someone's right when that right does not exist. You have no right to anything which must be provided to you by another. You have no more right to buy a cake someone doesn't want to sell you than someone has the right to make you buy a cake you don't really want.


Then don't offer it for sale specifically to me. Open your business in such a way as to exclude me. It can be done. What cannot be done is to redefine public. The public, by definition, includes everyone. Don't wish to sell to a specific group? Don't open your doors to them and invite them in. Don't commit the fraud of pretending to be a public accomodation when you're not.

Just as you have no obligation to sell to any individual, no individual has any obligation to buy from you. It's not really a difficult concept. Just as businesses are free to discriminate, so are consumers. You can spin whatever scenarios you wish. The answer remains the same. Discrimination is legal in both business and private life. What isn't legal in business is pretending not to discriminate while intending to discriminate.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Then don't offer it for sale specifically to me. Open your business in such a way as to exclude me. It can be done. What cannot be done is to redefine public. The public, by definition, includes everyone. Don't wish to sell to a specific group? Don't open your doors to them and invite them in. Don't commit the fraud of pretending to be a public accomodation when you're not.


So once you open a business to the public all the property in that business becomes public property? If not then how can you say that the government has control over how it is sold?




mmoetc said:


> Just as you have no obligation to sell to any individual, no individual has any obligation to buy from you. It's not really a difficult concept. Just as businesses are free to discriminate, so are consumers. You can spin whatever scenarios you wish. The answer remains the same. Discrimination is legal in both business and private life. What isn't legal in business is pretending not to discriminate while intending to discriminate.


So you think it would be legal for a bakery to post a sign saying we will not knowingly sell cakes which support the homosexual life style or the marriage, education nor reproduction of blacks?


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

watcher said:


> Really? You can observe the speed of light in deep space? Or do you just "believe" it travels at the speed you want it to?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




1. You shouldn't be surprised that I only used the first definition of the word. It is the original definition of the word. It is the only one that is related to the historical meaning of all the words it was derived from in ancient and medieval times when the concept of religion was being articulated into our culture. All of the other definitions are simply there to explain all the "creative" and non-literal ways the word has been used in modern times, in some cases by people who never wanted to accept that their religious views are second fiddle to the Constitution. 

2. The primary definition of religion is the only one relevant to the Constitution. It is absolutely clear what the word religion refers to in the Constitution. The founders did NOT consider political philosophy to be religion. That is made OBVIOUS by the fact that they treated religion as a separate entity from their own political beliefs, and the political system that they created. The fact that they treated religion as separate from political philosophy tells you exactly what the First Amendment means. If they believed that political philosophy was a religion, then the Constitution was a religious document, and they wouldn't have bothered with freedom of religion, because their religion was the law... At which point all of the protections you are given by the Constitution are rendered null and void by the fact the Constitution contradicts itself by establishing itself as the state religion. If that's what you believe.... Then you actually have no religious rights whatsoever. We'll just sort out whose religion wins democratically, and someday someone will make those "Jesus Loves You" billboards down, and no one will be able to say boo about it. Is that what you want? 

Just use that common sense so many people here keep talking about. Be careful what you wish for.



watcher said:


> Read 1.1 and 1.2 and you will see.



See above. The manipulation of the true meaning of the word religion is historically evident. Read the etymology of the word. Use common sense.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> So you think the government shouldn't have the power to force you to buy something you don't want to buy but you do think it should have the power to sell something you do not want to sell. I've very confused.


You are not required to sell anything you don't want to sell.... Ever. However if you want to sell a product, advertise it for sale, and sell said product to the public at large as a routine part of your business you do not have the right to discriminate who you sell said product to as long as the buyer has cash in fist and meets any legal requirements. Being of legal age to buy tobacco or alcohol for example. It's quite simple really, unless yer just trying to be a pain.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> My tax money goes to a great number of things that I find abhorrent and, in reality, are obviously illegal.


If it's "obviously illegal" file a lawsuit.
Your answer though, has nothing to do with your original statement that I asked about:



> Are they not "forcing" Christians, as well as other people of faith,* to accept views* that are contrary to their beliefs? How is that not oppression?


So what VIEWS have you "accepted", and why are your "beliefs" more important than anyone else's?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by watcher View Post
> So you think the government shouldn't have the power to force you to buy something you don't want to buy but you do think it should have the power to sell something you do not want to sell. I've very confused.


I don't know why you're confused when this exact conversation has been done before in great detail. 

You keep wanting to talk about business and private sales as if they are the same thing, when they are not.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

wiscto said:


> I don't. And I've said that dozens of times around here. Period end of story.


Then when you start working on ending that folly.... you will learn the reality of what was the intent of the constitution and you might wake up about the slight of hand control.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

watcher said:


> Read 1.1 and 1.2 and you will see.


That doesn't change anything I stated
You're just recycling the same old spin, and still harping on the "speed of light"


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

kasilofhome said:


> Then when you start working on ending that folly.... you will learn the reality of what was the intent of the constitution and you might wake up about the slight of hand control.


Hahahaha... You should try applying that logic to real religion, you might learn a little something about the intent behind the bible...and "wake up about the slight of hand control." 

Or I could just tell you. Moses wanted to control and motivate his people... And what better avenue of control is there than a wrathful all powerful god who holds your people above all others? There isn't one... There's no better justification for xenophobia, genocide, and war either.



> They attacked Midian, just as God had commanded Moses, and killed every last man. Among the fallen were Evi, Rekem, Zur, Hur, and Reba&#8212;the five kings of Midian. They also killed Balaam son of Beor with the sword. The People of Israel took the Midianite women and children captive and took all their animals and herds and goods as plunder. They burned to the ground all the towns in which Midianites lived and also their tent camps. They looted and plundered everything and everyone&#8212;stuff and people and animals. They took it all&#8212;captives and booty and plunder&#8212;back to Moses and Eleazar the priest and the company of Israel where they were camped on the Plains of Moab, at Jordan-Jericho.
> 
> 13-18 Moses, Eleazar, and all the leaders of the congregation went to meet the returning army outside the camp. Moses was furious with the army officers&#8212;the commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds&#8212;as they came back from the battlefield: &#8220;What&#8217;s this! You&#8217;ve let these women live! They&#8217;re the ones who, under Balaam&#8217;s direction, seduced the People of Israel away from God in that mess at Peor, causing the plague that hit God&#8217;s people. Finish your job: kill all the boys. Kill every woman who has slept with a man. The younger women who are virgins you can keep alive for yourselves.


Maniacs and butchers.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> You are not required to sell anything you don't want to sell.... Ever. However if you want to sell a product, advertise it for sale, and sell said product to the public at large as a routine part of your business you do not have the right to discriminate who you sell said product to as long as the buyer has cash in fist and meets any legal requirements. Being of legal age to buy tobacco or alcohol for example. It's quite simple really, unless yer just trying to be a pain.


I'm very confused. Are you saying that once something is offered for sale you can not remove it from the market? Its clear that the baker did not want to sell his cake because he refused to do so. But the government told him, in effect, that he HAD to sell the cake even if he did not wish to sell it. 




Yvonne's hubby said:


> "you do not have the right to discriminate"


Here is the rub. Why do you not have the right to discriminate? You are not a government employee doing the government's business. Please point out to me where in the USC it says that individuals citizens must treat all others equally.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> I don't know why you're confused when this exact conversation has been done before in great detail.
> 
> You keep wanting to talk about business and private sales as if they are the same thing, when they are not.


Property is one of two things. It is either public property owned by government and therefore under its control or its private property owned by an individual (or group of individuals) and therefore under his/their control. 

You can not have your rights violated when there are no rights to violate. Just because the law says something doesn't make it a right. You have no right to anything which must be provided or taken from another citizen. It doesn't matter if they offered it for sale or if it was just laying in their yard. It is THEIR property. In a business transaction the property is the seller's and the money is the buyer's right up to the point of sale.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That doesn't change anything I stated
> You're just recycling the same old spin, and still harping on the "speed of light"


Because people still refuse to see the facts. The fact is you CAN have a religion w/o an all powerful supernatural god in it. The fact is most of cosmology is based on the unproven assumption that light in deep space acts the same way as it does near Earth.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

If items for sale are government property.... for irs taxing of inventory ...why does the the government require the shop owners to do that and pay tax if it not private property?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

This is a test of the ability to delete a post. If you are seeing this there was a failure to delete.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Because people still refuse to see the facts. The fact is you CAN have *a religion* w/o an all powerful supernatural god in it. The fact is most of *cosmology* is based on the unproven assumption that light in deep space acts the same way as it does near Earth.


Cosmology isn't a religion.
You keep trying to claim things are something they aren't even when we've had the exact same conversations before

You also keep repeating fabricated arguments such as "speed of light".

You should get new material because this stuff has been worn thin


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Cosmology isn't a religion.
> You keep trying to claim things are something they aren't even when we've had the exact same conversations before


Never said it was. Two separate sentences there with two different facts.




Bearfootfarm said:


> You also keep repeating fabricated arguments such as "speed of light".


I claim that we have never scientifically proven that light in deep space travels in the same way or at the same speed as it does on Earth. Now please show the world that my claim is false. 

Should be easy since my argument is "fabricated". You should be able to show me the scientific papers showing the repeated experiments showing the speed of light in deep space is the same as it is on Earth. Or provide some scientific proof to show its just a fabrication. 

If not then you will have to admit that you can only ASSUME that it does without any scientific proof. You also have to admit that the equations based on this ASSUMPTION have been shown not to work when compared to real life observations. With those two admissions most people would think you should check to see if maybe changing the speed of light in the equations would make them work before you started a whole new line of ASSUMING things.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> So you admit making someone preform an action they do not wish to preform even if they are paid for that action is wrong.


thats not what I said... I said we called those men soldiers.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> Ok so I've expressed a willingness to sell them. Now what if I don't have a willingness to sell to specifically to you? Should the government have the power to force me to sell it to you?
> 
> Look at it from the other direction. Say you walk into a bakery and tell a baker you want to buy a cake and are 'willing' to buy one. After looking around you leave w/o buying. The next day you are served a summons saying you are being sued because you failed to buy a cake after saying you wanted to buy one and showed your 'willingness' to buy a cake. The reason that you didn't want to buy a cake from him doesn't matter what does matter is that you singled him out to not buy from even though you said you wanted to buy and were willing to do so. It sounds crazy when you look it from the other side doesn't it?
> 
> The biggest problem comes from the fact you can't violate someone's right when that right does not exist. *You have no right to anything which must be provided to you by another. *You have no more right to buy a cake someone doesn't want to sell you than someone has the right to make you buy a cake you don't really want.


no matter how many times you repeat this.... It's still not going to become true. I have every right to purchase any product being offered for sale to the public.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Cosmology isn't a religion.
> You keep trying to claim things are something they aren't even when we've had the exact same conversations before


I'll ask my cousin.
She went to cosmology school and works in a shop downtown...........
My mom says she cuts hair religiously.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I claim that we have never scientifically proven that light in deep space travels in the same way or at the same speed as it does on Earth. Now please show the world that *my claim* is false.


Show it's true. It's your claim

It's just meaningless rambling that's been repeated endlessly


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Show it's true. It's your claim
> 
> It's just meaningless rambling that's been repeated endlessly


I'll take cosmology for $100, Alex........

"What is, the speed of light is different, depending on where it is measured."

That claim was proven in 1850.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/speed_of_light.html


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> I'll take cosmology for $100, Alex........
> 
> "What is, the speed of light is different, *depending on where it is measured*."
> 
> ...


That pretty much confirms it's constant in deep space which is the measurement he's obsessing over.



> In any case, there is good observational evidence to indicate that those parameters have not changed over most of the lifetime of the universe.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> So once you open a business to the public all the property in that business becomes public property? If not then how can you say that the government has control over how it is sold?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If the business is open to the public, generally no. In some jurisdictions they can refuse to serve gays and openly advertise as such. Legally they can restrict their business by opening only to those they wish to serve. There are jewish country clubs open as private businesses I cannot golf at. There are dining establishments in most large cities in which I cannot eat because I don't have the proper affiliation. There are many other examples of busineses legally discriminating. The property of a business never becomes public property. Businesses agree to act by certain rules. By opening as a public accomodation they agree to sell to the public. They are free to open as any sort of business they wish. They are not free to violate the laws governing that sort of business.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> If it's "obviously illegal" file a lawsuit.
> Your answer though, has nothing to do with your original statement that I asked about:
> 
> 
> So what VIEWS have you "accepted", and why are your "beliefs" more important than anyone else's?


 If you read more carefully you will see that I never said they force ME to accept any views that aren't mine, but, to beat a dead horse, when they force a business owner to sell to someone he wishes not to, they are forcing their beliefs on him and forcing him, in effect, to accept them. I know, the law says he must, but what is law if not force?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> thats not what I said... I said we called those men soldiers.


I'm sorry I thought you were saying the draft outside a national emergency was wrong.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> That pretty much confirms it's constant in deep space which is the measurement he's obsessing over.


The problem is gravity or lack thereof in deep space. We know light is affected by gravity, it has been proven. Heck most people here think that its gravity preventing light from escaping is why black holes are black.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Farmerga said:


> If you read more carefully you will see that I never said they force ME to accept any views that aren't mine, but, to beat a dead horse, when they force a business owner to sell to someone he wishes not to, they are forcing their beliefs on him and forcing him, in effect, to accept them. I know, the law says he must, but what is law if not force?


No, they don't force anyone to "accept" anything.

They are "forced" to treat all customers *equally*, by merely doing their jobs without prejudice. 

Why should that bother you when you are happy with him forcing his beliefs on the customer?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

watcher said:


> The problem is gravity or lack thereof in deep space. We know light is affected by gravity, it has been proven. Heck most people here think that its gravity preventing light from escaping is why black holes are black.


Then prove your theory, since what he linked said it's constant in a vaccuum

The only variations were in the instruments used for the measurements


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

wiscto said:


> Powerful. Riveting. So much so that you've convinced yourself that secularists are victimizing you by refusing to let you control the government, and all of us....through the government. The irony of everything you stand for is just disappointing. Picture Caesar mocking himself for being a dictator. That's how I see you.


It doesn't take much to get you lit up. Plus, your ability to draw maximum conclusions from such a minimal statement is remarkable.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

HDRider said:


> It doesn't take much to get you lite up. Plus, your ability to draw maximum conclusions from such a minimal statement is remarkable.


Likewise.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> I'm sorry I thought you were saying the draft outside a national emergency was wrong.


how about this... Read the words I type without adding hidden meanings.  now, that being said if there was some underlying message it would be closer to "a draft outside or inside a national emergency is unconstitutional due to the thirteenth amendment". Not saying it's right, wrong, necessary under some conditions or not, just that involuntary servitude became unconstitutional when the thirteenth was passed and duly ratified.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Farmerga said:


> If you read more carefully you will see that I never said they force ME to accept any views that aren't mine, but, to beat a dead horse, when they force a business owner to sell to someone he wishes not to, they are forcing their beliefs on him and forcing him, in effect, to accept them. I know, the law says he must, but what is law if not force?


The law simply says he must follow the laws that govern his business, just as any business owner must do. They say nothing about what the business owner must believe. The owner is free to open a business that sells or doesn't sell certain products. The owner is free to open a business that is only open to those he believes are worthy of his goods or services. I've given many examples. The owner isn't free to open a public accomodation and refuse to serve the public. He can believe what he wishes, but he must follow the law. Religous freedom doesn't give you relief from other laws, why this one?


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> The law simply says he must follow the laws that govern his business, just as any business owner must do. They say nothing about what the business owner must believe. The owner is free to open a business that sells or doesn't sell certain products. The owner is free to open a business that is only open to those he believes are worthy of his goods or services. I've given many examples. The owner isn't free to open a public accomodation and refuse to serve the public. He can believe what he wishes, but he must follow the law. Religous freedom doesn't give you relief from other laws, why this one?


Show me where in the USC where the right to buy anything is expressed. Or if you can't find that specifically show me where there is ANY individual right stated which requires a second individual to provide something.

According to the USC and the courts you are supposed to have the right to exercise your religion how you wish with minimal government interference and to be secure from government involvement in your private property. 

If you can't point that out to me that there is a right to buy something from an individual when that individual does not wish to sell it to you then all your hoopla about laws and regulations and such are moot because in the US rights (exercise of religion and private property) trump laws and regulations.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> Show me where in the USC where the right to buy anything is expressed. Or if you can't find that specifically show me where there is ANY individual right stated which requires a second individual to provide something.
> 
> According to the USC and the courts you are supposed to have the right to exercise your religion how you wish with minimal government interference and to be secure from government involvement in your private property.
> 
> If you can't point that out to me that there is a right to buy something from an individual when that individual does not wish to sell it to you then all your hoopla about laws and regulations and such are moot because in the US rights (exercise of religion and private property) trump laws and regulations.


If any of the laws in question required a business to operate in a specific way in conflict with their religous beliefs they would be in violation of the constitution. None of the laws do that. They don't require a business to open its doors to all. They don't require a business to sell anything. They simply require a business that freely chooses to invite all people in to provide goods and services to all those people equally. It's the businesses choice how to operate. I've shown you many examples of businesses that openly discriminate. How is it that they are legally compliant? The answer is simple. They choose to operate according to constitutional laws that allow them to legally discriminate. Your bakers have the same choice open to them.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> Show me where in the USC where the right to buy anything is expressed. Or if you can't find that specifically show me where there is ANY individual right stated which requires a second individual to provide something.
> 
> According to the USC and the courts you are supposed to have the right to exercise your religion how you wish with minimal government interference and to be secure from government involvement in your private property.
> 
> If you can't point that out to me that there is a right to buy something from an individual when that individual does not wish to sell it to you then all your hoopla about laws and regulations and such are moot because in the US rights (exercise of religion and private property) trump laws and regulations.


Have a look at the ninth amendment, that might clear your thinking about a citizens right to do business. The term unenumerated is used to describe rights not specifically listed but commonly accepted.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

Well... Say what you want about the Constitution, have your opinions about the baker, the Civil Rights Act is the law, and right now that means that you can't discriminate against anyone based on religion, politics, race... That law included commerce very intentionally.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> If any of the laws in question required a business to operate in a specific way in conflict with their religous beliefs they would be in violation of the constitution. None of the laws do that. They don't require a business to open its doors to all. They don't require a business to sell anything. They simply require a business that freely chooses to invite all people in to provide goods and services to all those people equally. It's the businesses choice how to operate. I've shown you many examples of businesses that openly discriminate. How is it that they are legally compliant? The answer is simple. They choose to operate according to constitutional laws that allow them to legally discriminate. Your bakers have the same choice open to them.


I'm sorry but I disagree. Requiring a business to provide a good or service it does not want to provide to a person they do not wish to provide it, for what ever reason, to me is a violation of a person's right to control their private property and their personal lives. 

Plus there's the fact that someone can not violate a right you do not have. You do not have the right to buy something. Tell me what right is violated if a private individual someone refuses to sell a person a car because the buyer is the "wrong" height, gender, religion or whatever. Remember we are NOT talking about a government agent nor agency but private citizens.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Have a look at the ninth amendment, that might clear your thinking about a citizens right to do business. The term unenumerated is used to describe rights not specifically listed but commonly accepted.


Have a look at the 4th and see how it says a person has the right to his personal property.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

wiscto said:


> Well... Say what you want about the Constitution, have your opinions about the baker, the Civil Rights Act is the law, and right now that means that you can't discriminate against anyone based on religion, politics, race... That law included commerce very intentionally.


And for many years segregation was the law, did that make it right or correct? There are plenty of things today which are not supported by the USC when a "reasonable man" reads the words written but because they are currently politically correct the pols in neither branch of the government aren't going to do anything about it.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> I'm sorry but I disagree. Requiring a business to provide a good or service it does not want to provide to a person they do not wish to provide it, for what ever reason, to me is a violation of a person's right to control their private property and their personal lives.
> 
> Plus there's the fact that someone can not violate a right you do not have. You do not have the right to buy something. Tell me what right is violated if a private individual someone refuses to sell a person a car because the buyer is the "wrong" height, gender, religion or whatever. Remember we are NOT talking about a government agent nor agency but private citizens.


You can disagree all you want. It doesn't make you right. I'm not claiming a right to buy something exists. If it did no business could discriminate. I've repeatedly pointed out many do and you have repeatedly ignored that fact. What exists is that everyone has a right to equal application of the law. Businesses have to follow laws, rules and regulations. Those laws rules and regulations must apply equally. Show me the law that violates this. Antidiscrimination laws don't say Christians must serve gays. That would violate the constitution. The laws say that businesses that open as public accomodations must serve all of the public. It doesn't matter whether the business owner is religous or just a bigot. The law applies equally. The option exists for the business to open as a private entitey that openly discriminates. Its perfectly legal whether that discrimination is based on religion or some personal hatred of certain people. The law applies equally. Your arguments work because you apply false premises. When the premises are valid so are the laws.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> You can disagree all you want. It doesn't make you right. I'm not claiming a right to buy something exists. If it did no business could discriminate. I've repeatedly pointed out many do and you have repeatedly ignored that fact. What exists is that everyone has a right to equal application of the law. Businesses have to follow laws, rules and regulations. Those laws rules and regulations must apply equally. Show me the law that violates this. Antidiscrimination laws don't say Christians must serve gays. That would violate the constitution. The laws say that businesses that open as public accomodations must serve all of the public. It doesn't matter whether the business owner is religous or just a bigot. The law applies equally. The option exists for the business to open as a private entitey that openly discriminates. Its perfectly legal whether that discrimination is based on religion or some personal hatred of certain people. The law applies equally. Your arguments work because you apply false premises. When the premises are valid so are the laws.



You are correct, we've discussed this before.
The simple solution is to operate your business WITHOUT the government's authority. No business license, no authority to tell you what to do. The freedom is there and always has been.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> You are correct, we've discussed this before.
> The simple solution is to operate your business WITHOUT the government's authority. No business license, no authority to tell you what to do. The freedom is there and always has been.


If you wish to discriminate you can also operate your business under the government authority that allows you to. Many do it every say without violating any laws or their conscience. That freedom of choice as to how to operate also exists. For the religous or anyone else.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mmoetc said:


> If you wish to discriminate you can also operate your business under the government authority that allows you to. Many do it every say without violating any laws or their conscience. That freedom of choice as to how to operate also exists. For the religous or anyone else.


Nope, ain't gonna let the camel's nose under my tent.
The gov't can go their way and I'll go mine, just leave me be.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> You can disagree all you want. It doesn't make you right. I'm not claiming a right to buy something exists. If it did no business could discriminate. I've repeatedly pointed out many do and you have repeatedly ignored that fact. What exists is that everyone has a right to equal application of the law.


Even if that law itself violates someone's rights? This is the point. You are claiming that by following a religious belief, which most will agree is constitutionally protected, and not selling a good to someone the buyer's right has been violated. The only time a right is supposed to be able to be overridden by law is if it conflicts with or violates another right. If you do not have the right to buy something then someone can not violate your right to buy it! 

Your view that the reason its a violation of a right is because its the law and therefore not enforcing the law violates someone's rights is at best a circular argument. 

We are talking about private citizens and private property not government agents and public property. 

Strange but go with me here. . .Do you agree if you wanted you could put a sign on your drive way saying no left handed people allowed and be have the legal ability to demand, under trespassing laws, that any left handed person leave your property? Now if your local government passed a law saying that it was illegal to prevent left handed people from accessing private property would you say that would be a legal/constitutional law? Would you argue that because after the law was passed when your neighbor refused to allow a left handed person to walk up his drive he violated the rights of that left handed person?

Now if you have the ability and right to do that with your private property in one place but not in another how is that applying the laws equally?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> Even if that law itself violates someone's rights? This is the point. You are claiming that by following a religious belief, which most will agree is constitutionally protected, and not selling a good to someone the buyer's right has been violated. The only time a right is supposed to be able to be overridden by law is if it conflicts with or violates another right. If you do not have the right to buy something then someone can not violate your right to buy it!
> 
> Your view that the reason its a violation of a right is because its the law and therefore not enforcing the law violates someone's rights is at best a circular argument.
> 
> ...


Ill answer another of your ridiculous hypothetica&#322;s. They do get tedious though. The government has every right to regu&#322;ate business. That is all antidiscrimination laws are. They are essentially no different than sanitation laws for restaurants or laws requiring a certain number of handicapped parking spaces in a parking lot. The flaw in your scenario is that the government has no right to regulate who I will or won't allow in my yard or house. There is no expectation that anyone is allowed to enter. There is an expectation that when one opens a business to the public that they'll serve the public. That is partbof the agreement made when the business chooses to operate as a public accomodation. No government entity forces that choice on them. That would be a constitutional violation. I'll point out again, and I'm sure you'll ignore it again, that businesses have the legal right to discriminate. How can they do it? Even the judge hearing the appeal in the Colorado bakery case understood this and gave the bakers an out. He didn't say they couldn't discriminate. You might wish to find his words, read them and make some attempt to understand them. Religious freedom gives no one the right to break the law.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Ill answer another of your ridiculous hypothetica&#322;s. They do get tedious though. The government has every right to regu&#322;ate business. That is all antidiscrimination laws are.


Yes the government has the right to regulate business but the simple thing you are missing is the government has no right to have a regulation which violates the rights of the business owner. That is WAY outside the bounds of power given to them. The *only *exception would be if in involving that right it would violate a right of another. And I think everyone here has agreed that there is no constitutionally guaranteed right to buy something. 

Its about freedom and the LIMITED power of government. Or more about the out of control and abuse of power by the government. 

Would a government regulation which prevented business owners from expressing a negative, or any, opinion of a government employee or action be OK with you? After all its just a regulation and a person could choose to either follow it or just not open a business, right? See how crazy it looks when you try to use the same logic with other rights?




mmoetc said:


> They are essentially no different than sanitation laws for restaurants or laws requiring a certain number of handicapped parking spaces in a parking lot.


It is different than sanitation laws but not different than demanding handicapped parking spaces. Sanitation laws protect the public as a whole. The handicapped parking space laws give a segment of the pubic an advantage over the rest of it. I think providing spots for handicapped people is great but I think the government should not be in the "business" of treating one group better or worse than another. Once you start saying this group deserve a law which benefits only them where do you stop? 




mmoetc said:


> The flaw in your scenario is that the government has no right to regulate who I will or won't allow in my yard or house.


Why not? Could they not just pass a regulation requiring all property owners allow all people access to private property before they allowed the property to be occupied? There are many places which have regulations you must follow before you are allowed to live in a home. Most cities require you to have a connection with city water and sewer do they not? You seem to think if its a regulation you can avoid by not taking an action then its ok. In this case it be up to you to choose if you wanted to live there or not; just like someone can choose to open a business or not. I don't think there's anything in the constitution which says you have the right to live in any city you wish is there? 




mmoetc said:


> Religious freedom gives no one the right to break the law.


Really? So Indians face arrest if they use peyote during the exercise of their religion?


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> Yes the government has the right to regulate business but the simple thing you are missing is the government has no right to have a regulation which violates the rights of the business owner. That is WAY outside the bounds of power given to them. The *only *exception would be if in involving that right it would violate a right of another. And I think everyone here has agreed that there is no constitutionally guaranteed right to buy something.
> 
> Its about freedom and the LIMITED power of government. Or more about the out of control and abuse of power by the government.
> 
> ...


The Indian- peyote question is relatively easy to answer and won't strengthen your case. Here's some information about the laws governing it.https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1996a. There is no right to use peyote or any other controlled substance during religous ceremonies. The Supreme Court ruling on that still stands. There are laws that allow Indians the privilege of doing so but even that privilege comes with restrictions. If you substitute discrimination for peyote use you'll come up with the same answers. Just as there's no religous right to violate drug laws there's no religous right to violate antidiscrimination laws. There are laws in place that allow discrimination just as there are laws in place that allow peyote use. The laws allowing discrimination are much broader in scope and many businesses operate in a discriminatory manner without penalty. It's this simple fact you continue to ignore that makes all your arguments without merit. There is no religous right to violate the law. The law can make exceptions for the religous not to comply.

It is interesting that you cite the validity of sanitation laws as being based on some doctrine of greater good for society by providing protection for everyone. Maybe you can show me the clause in the constitution that says government is your protector.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> The Indian- peyote question is relatively easy to answer and won't strengthen your case. Here's some information about the laws governing it.
> 
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1996a. There is no right to use peyote or any other controlled substance during religous ceremonies. The Supreme Court ruling on that still stands. There are laws that allow Indians the privilege of doing so but even that privilege comes with restrictions. If you substitute discrimination for peyote use you'll come up with the same answers. Just as there's no religous right to violate drug laws there's no religous right to violate antidiscrimination laws. There are laws in place that allow discrimination just as there are laws in place that allow peyote use. The laws allowing discrimination are much broader in scope and many businesses operate in a discriminatory manner without penalty. It's this simple fact you continue to ignore that makes all your arguments without merit. There is no religous right to violate the law. The law can make exceptions for the religous not to comply.


You are correct. Unless you are a follower of a specific religion and are following that religion practices of that religion the use of peyote is ILLEGAL. See the laws were SPECIFICALLY written to allow a religious group to follow its religion in a way that is considered illegal by others because it would violate the rights of followers of that religion to do otherwise. Now if that law were changed tomorrow would you say that it would remove that right from that religion or would you say doing so would violate the rights of followers of that religion? 




mmoetc said:


> It is interesting that you cite the validity of sanitation laws as being based on some doctrine of greater good for society by providing protection for everyone. Maybe you can show me the clause in the constitution that says government is your protector.


_Article I; Section 8

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;_

The government is not MY protector, it can not constitutionally pass a law which benefits me as an individual. That is not providing for the general welfare. 

Let's look at medical services. It is within the government's power to provide medical services using tax dollars to stop or prevent a epidemic because doing so servers to protect the lives of people in general. It is NOT within its power to provide an individual with medical care, say for our hypothetical child with cancer, because doing so only benefits that individual.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

wiscto said:


> Well... Say what you want about the Constitution, have your opinions about the baker, the Civil Rights Act is the law, and right now that means that you can't discriminate against anyone based on religion, politics, race... That law included commerce very intentionally.


Sure you can. Businesses do it legally every day. They just have to do it in accordance with the law.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> You are correct. Unless you are a follower of a specific religion and are following that religion practices of that religion the use of peyote is ILLEGAL. See the laws were SPECIFICALLY written to allow a religious group to follow its religion in a way that is considered illegal by others because it would violate the rights of followers of that religion to do otherwise. Now if that law were changed tomorrow would you say that it would remove that right from that religion or would you say doing so would violate the rights of followers of that religion?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


And a law that says Steve gets to buy wedding cakes would be unconstitutional, but a law that says everyone does is perfectly in line with your principle of general welfare. It benefits all and has the added effect of treating everyone equally under the law as the constitution also requires. 


Now, back to peyote. A right requires no law to allow someone to exercise it. If peyote use were a right there would be no need for a law. There's no need for a law allowing Jews to recognize their sabbath nor you yours. It is your right to recognize it when you will. You have no right to drive 70mph. The law allows you to do so under certain curcumstances. I disagree with the Supreme Court decision but that decision still makes peyote use unconstitutional until it is overturned.. Peyote has a long established tradition as a religous practice and ceremony. As such it's use shouldn't be restricted as long as it's used in that context. Recreational use could still be illegal. The difference is that baking a cake and selling it to the public has no religous connection. Baking a cake has no religous tradition. Selling a cake to the public is part of no religous ceremony. Baking and selling a cake is an act of commerce, clearly able to be regulated, not of religion, clearly not. 

Now I'll ask you the same question I've been asking. How is it that so many businesses in this country have been and will continue to be able to legally discriminate against even "protected classes"? How is it these companies aren't having their rights violated or violating the rights of others?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Ok I reread the fourth amendment, it hasn't changed since the last time I read it. It does reference personal property but only to the extent that it's protected from search and seizure without a proper warrant. Avery specific protection, since most people would have the right to purchase your cake, or anything else you might offer to sell, both the ninth amendment and the equal treatment under the law comes into play. Even without the constitution common sense combined with decent manners should prevent discrimination in the marketplace.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> And a law that says Steve gets to buy wedding cakes would be unconstitutional, but a law that says everyone does is perfectly in line with your principle of general welfare. It benefits all and has the added effect of treating everyone equally under the law as the constitution also requires.


How so? How does buying a wedding cake do anything for the general welfare of the nation? If there were a sudden massive shortage of wedding cakes would it be necessary for the federal government to step in and provide wedding cakes to prevent wide spread deaths or stop a threat to national security? If not then a law which allows a person's right to practice his religion as he sees fit to be violated is unconstitutional.





mmoetc said:


> Now, back to peyote. A right requires no law to allow someone to exercise it. If peyote use were a right there would be no need for a law. There's no need for a law allowing Jews to recognize their sabbath nor you yours. It is your right to recognize it when you will.


Correct but you should remember a few things. A law can only infringe on a right or make it illegal for others to infringe on it. The government could pass a law saying that Jews are not allowed to worship, its happened before, which would infringe on that right. Or the government could pass a law saying that attempting to stop Jews from worshiping is illegal which would prevent it from being infringed on. 




mmoetc said:


> The difference is that baking a cake and selling it to the public has no religous connection. Baking a cake has no religous tradition. Selling a cake to the public is part of no religous ceremony. Baking and selling a cake is an act of commerce, clearly able to be regulated, not of religion, clearly not.


You run into the fact that the law forces people to do acts which are against their religious beliefs which interferes with their ability to freely practice their religion. And unless there are competing rights the government is not allowed to pass laws which does that.

But take religion out of it. The law allows the government to take control of private property from an individual. Will you admit that you have the right to sell or not sell your private property as you see fit? Are the following statements true: 

_You can tell your neighbor that you want to sell your car but when he comes over with the cash you can tell him you have changed your mind and not face a civil suit for violating his right to buy the car you said you wanted to sell. 

You can tell him the reason you changed your mind is you remembered he was left handed and you just don't like left handed people._

Now if you can do that with your car why can't a businessman do that with his cake? Are not both private property? Or are businessmen second class citizens therefore constitutional rights do not apply to them?




mmoetc said:


> Now I'll ask you the same question I've been asking. How is it that so many businesses in this country have been and will continue to be able to legally discriminate against even "protected classes"? How is it these companies aren't having their rights violated or violating the rights of others?


Either because the political climate hasn't changed enough, there no political fodder to be collected or no one has taken the time to sue them.

If forced I'd put my money on the first reason. Remember there was a time when the government was allowed to treat you differently than your neighbor based on nothing but you skin color. It was politically correct and therefore found to be legal. But when the political winds changed the courts suddenly found that doing so violated the constitution. And who knows if the US survives for 50 more years the political winds my changer again and the courts will suddenly discover that it really is constitutional.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Ok I reread the fourth amendment, it hasn't changed since the last time I read it. It does reference personal property but only to the extent that it's protected from search and seizure without a proper warrant.


The hair in the biscuit is the fact that by requiring you to sell your private property to someone you do not wish to have it or face punishment from the government means that the government has taken control of your private property. 




Yvonne's hubby said:


> Avery specific protection, since most people would have the right to purchase your cake, or anything else you might offer to sell, both the ninth amendment and the equal treatment under the law comes into play.


Now for your equal treatment. Say you have baked a cake and you tell your neighbor that you want to sell it for $20. Later your neighbor comes over with a twenty and says he's there to buy your cake. You tell him that because he's left handed you won't sell it to him. Could he go to the feds and have them bring a federal civil rights suit against you?

If you can't face a federal law suit for refusing to selling a cake you baked then isn't allowing the feds to go after a professional baker for doing the same thing you did a violation of the equal treatment under the law stand you are taking? Or do you feel that all bakers equal but some bakers are more equal than others?




Yvonne's hubby said:


> Even without the constitution common sense combined with decent manners should prevent discrimination in the marketplace.


This I agree with but one of the cost of living in a free nation is having to put up with things which we don't like even when we see them going against common sense and decent manners.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> How so? How does buying a wedding cake do anything for the general welfare of the nation? If there were a sudden massive shortage of wedding cakes would it be necessary for the federal government to step in and provide wedding cakes to prevent wide spread deaths or stop a threat to national security? If not then a law which allows a person's right to practice his religion as he sees fit to be violated is unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The common good of antidiscrimination laws is that everyone has free and open access to goods and services freely and openly offered for sale. There is a reason the laws speak of public accomodations. It's quite a specific term. You speak of force where no government forces exist. Market and other forces do impact a decision on how to operate but the government forces no such decision despite all your claims to the contrary. The government only cares that you follow the rules for the business you choose to enter. The government offers choices. Those choices include being able to pick and choose your customers and clients based on any criteria you wish. What the government doesn't allow you to do is claim you make no such distinction and then do so. It's a law that applies to everyone. It's a law that benefits everyone, even the religous who wish to discriminate. They are not penalized by the government unless they lie about their intentions. That would be another general welfare benefit of these laws. Open and honest business practices.

You and I will never agree on this. I'm done discussing it with one who can only prove his point with continued false premise and flawed logic.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> The common good of antidiscrimination laws is that everyone has free and open access to goods and services freely and openly offered for sale.


I'm sorry but the common good is not the constitutional standard. Its good that people eat a balanced diet and exercise should the government have the power to tell you what you may and may not eat and use the threat of civil fines to force you to exercise?

Now please answer my question. Would a massive shortage of wedding cakes place the general populace in danger? If not than not having wedding cakes is NOT a threat to the general welfare of the nation and the general welfare clause is moot.




mmoetc said:


> You speak of force where no government forces exist.


So the threat of a fine large enough to bankrupt you is not a force? The threat of having your ability to make a living providing a good or service removed from you is not a force?




mmoetc said:


> You and I will never agree on this. I'm done discussing it with one who can only prove his point with continued false premise and flawed logic.


You are the one who seems to have a flaw in his logic. You seem to claim that a law is legal because its a law. If this were the case then anything the government wished to have happen could be done with the passing of a law. While this is true in many nations it USED to not be true in the US. I can not say the same for today.

In the past I spent may hours of my life fighting against laws that were legal and accepted which allowed the government to treat one class of people differently than another. In that case people were classified by their skin color. In my view classifying them based on if they are a business owner or not is just as wrong. I'm sorry that you feel that its fine for the government to treat one of your fellow citizens differently than another just because it happens to be politically correct at the time.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

watcher said:


> This I agree with but one of the cost of living in a free nation is having to put up with things which we don't like even when we see them going against common sense and decent manners.


Or put up with doing the right thing whether you like it or not. Just sell your product, whatever it is, to the person who shows up with cash in fist. What's the rub? You make an honest dollar, your customer gets what he/she wants without penalizing anyone, well except the lawyers who won't be getting outrageous fees for dragging you through the courts. It's kinda like posting here in HT, "be nice" is the best rule going.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> I'm sorry but the common good is not the constitutional standard. Its good that people eat a balanced diet and exercise should the government have the power to tell you what you may and may not eat and use the threat of civil fines to force you to exercise?
> 
> Now please answer my question. Would a massive shortage of wedding cakes place the general populace in danger? If not than not having wedding cakes is NOT a threat to the general welfare of the nation and the general welfare clause is moot.
> 
> ...


I said I wouldn't argue the issue more and I won't. I will point out the tactics you use that make it impossible to have a rational discussion.

Inconsistency. You say there is no standard of common good yet you made this statement a few posts ago. " Sanitation laws protect the public as a whole." What is that other than a common good. How does that not fall under general welfare. You cannot logically argue that a standard exists for your purposes and only your purposes. 

Setting forth hypotheticals that support your stance which have no bearing on reality. No law mentions wedding cakes. No one claims a wedding cake shortage. Your question is easily answered but it has no basis in reality thus it has no bearing. It's a question not rooted in reality that only serves to set up a nonexistent premise to support your conclusion. Since the premise is false so must be the conclusion you draw from it. Logic prevails again.

A failure to understand the constitution and law. Legal and unconstitutional are different standards and have different meanings. You tend to use them interchangeably. They're not. Laws are legal until proven otherwise. Laws are constitutional until proven otherwise. Our system can operate in no other way. Someone must be affected by a law before it can be challenged. No system of law can operate otherwise. No law could ever be declared constitutional because those like you could always come up with some hypothetical situation in which a law may be misused. Courts cannot rule on hypotheticals. They can only rule on facts. Until the law impacts somebody through enforcement there can be no fact brought forth about its effects. That's logically how our system works.

Hyperbole and false choices. The bakers were not offered only the choice of complying with the law in violation of their belief, paying continued fines or going out of business. They were offered another choice. To operate their wedding cake business in a legal, discriminatory manner. The appellate opinion clearly tries to steer them there. It is a choice the laws allow. It is a choice you continue to dismiss. It's a logical choice that businesses utilize every day. The owners aren't treated differently. By choosing to open a business and operate it as a public accommodation they are treated the same as all other business owners. They chose their category. No government placed them there. If they wish only to invite those they approve of into their business the law allows it. Just as it allows you to put a no trespassing sign in your drive and exclude those you don't like or know. Logically, if they wish to discriminate they can.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Or put up with doing the right thing whether you like it or not. Just sell your product, whatever it is, to the person who shows up with cash in fist. What's the rub? You make an honest dollar, your customer gets what he/she wants without penalizing anyone, well except the lawyers who won't be getting outrageous fees for dragging you through the courts. It's kinda like posting here in HT, "be nice" is the best rule going.


When its your choice I have no problem with it. Its when you are doing it because their is an armed government agent telling you that MUST do it that I have a problem.


----------



## watcher (Sep 4, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> I said I wouldn't argue the issue more and I won't. I will point out the tactics you use that make it impossible to have a rational discussion.
> 
> Inconsistency. You say there is no standard of common good yet you made this statement a few posts ago. " Sanitation laws protect the public as a whole." What is that other than a common good. How does that not fall under general welfare. You cannot logically argue that a standard exists for your purposes and only your purposes.


I set a very clear, and IMO logical reasonable man, standard for "common good". Any benefit must be for the populace, i.e. the nation as a whole, and be available for use to any member of the public. I might add that it not being able to be provided by private business. 




mmoetc said:


> Setting forth hypotheticals that support your stance which have no bearing on reality. No law mentions wedding cakes. No one claims a wedding cake shortage. Your question is easily answered but it has no basis in reality thus it has no bearing. It's a question not rooted in reality that only serves to set up a nonexistent premise to support your conclusion. Since the premise is false so must be the conclusion you draw from it. Logic prevails again.


You are ignoring the point. The point is there is no way you can say that forcing a business to sell a wedding cake is promoting the general welfare. Which is what we were discussing at that point.




mmoetc said:


> A failure to understand the constitution and law. Legal and unconstitutional are different standards and have different meanings. You tend to use them interchangeably. They're not. Laws are legal until proven otherwise. Laws are constitutional until proven otherwise. Our system can operate in no other way. Someone must be affected by a law before it can be challenged. No system of law can operate otherwise. No law could ever be declared constitutional because those like you could always come up with some hypothetical situation in which a law may be misused. Courts cannot rule on hypotheticals. They can only rule on facts. Until the law impacts somebody through enforcement there can be no fact brought forth about its effects. That's logically how our system works.


That's like the old saying "Its not illegal until you are caught." A law maybe ENFORCEABLE until it is ruled unconstitutional but its is not, as you say, legal until that point. If what you are trying to say is true then everyone convicted under a law later found to be unconstitutional would have to remain in jail because the law was legal when they were convicted. 

And you are wrong. Judges have many times issued injunctions to prevent a law from being enforced based on the hypothetical results of its enforcement. Do a google news search using "judge issues injunction abortion law" and see how many times this has happened in the just last 5 years.




mmoetc said:


> Hyperbole and false choices. The bakers were not offered only the choice of complying with the law in violation of their belief, paying continued fines or going out of business. They were offered another choice. To operate their wedding cake business in a legal, discriminatory manner. The appellate opinion clearly tries to steer them there. It is a choice the laws allow. It is a choice you continue to dismiss. It's a logical choice that businesses utilize every day. The owners aren't treated differently. By choosing to open a business and operate it as a public accommodation they are treated the same as all other business owners. They chose their category. No government placed them there. If they wish only to invite those they approve of into their business the law allows it. Just as it allows you to put a no trespassing sign in your drive and exclude those you don't like or know. Logically, if they wish to discriminate they can.


Two problems. Its a Hobson's choice. You have the choice of doing what the government demands or not opening a business.

And the government is not allowed to limit rights of an individual when the exercise of those rights do not violate the rights of another.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

watcher said:


> I set a very clear, and IMO logical reasonable man, standard for "common good". Any benefit must be for the populace, i.e. the nation as a whole, and be available for use to any member of the public. I might add that it not being able to be provided by private business.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks for proving my point. Antidiscrimination laws meet your standard. They apply to everyone and they benefit everyone by allowing them to walk into any business open to them. Your caveat rules out sanitation standards applied to any restaurant not run by the government, does it not?


As I've said, a law specifically addressing wedding cakes would be problamatic. No law exists despite your continued citation of one. The law applies to all people and all goods and services.

But an injunction is not a final ruling. You can also read how many of those injunctions have been lifted by higher courts. You continue to conflate legal and constitutional. It's not illegal to enforce a law later found to be unconstitutional. 

And you continue to ignore the choice, allowed by law, to operate your business in a legally discriminatory fashion. Your premise only works when you eliminate that choice. Is that why you continue to do it? No rights are denied the store owner. They are free to sell what the wish to whom they wish. That's the point at which all your arguments fail. I've now wasted enough time on this. I'll let you have your last, likely illogical, word.


----------

