Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
I love trick questions.
The answer of course is that if they ever stopped they'd no longer be liberal, activist judges.
Is there any state that's safe?
I love trick questions.
The answer of course is that if they ever stopped they'd no longer be liberal, activist judges.
Southern Democrats. Who became Republicans after -- not surprisingly -- the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Yes, the more Republican the south became the less racist it became, thanks for validating my point.
By the way, the south turned Red, not because of hand-me-down racism, but because of Republicans fleeing the taxes and unions of the northeast and Rust Belt and because air conditioning made the South more habitable.
You can look that up to.
Wow, you really think highly of your fellow countrymen don't you? A nation of bigots rather than the most tolerant nation on earth.
C'mon, the Arizona bill is kinda soft on the genocide of gays.
Do you know how we got to this point? The proponents of SSM did not heed the warning of the Vertigo Tour and "became a monster to kill the monster." That's how we got here.
Reread the First Amendment and tell me what it says about the free exercise of religion.
Do you know how we got to this point? The proponents of SSM did not heed the warning of the Vertigo Tour and "became a monster to kill the monster." That's how we got here.
Reread the First Amendment and tell me what it says about the free exercise of religion.
It seems like this election season "religious liberty" is a hot topic. Rumors of its demise are all around, as are politicians who want to make sure that you know they will never do anything to intrude upon it.
I'm a religious person with a lifelong passion for civil rights, so this is of great interest to me. So much so, that I believe we all need to determine whether our religious liberties are indeed at risk. So, as a public service, I've come up with this little quiz. I call it "How to Determine if Your Religious Liberty Is Being Threatened in Just 10 Quick Questions." Just pick "A" or "B" for each question.
1. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am not allowed to go to a religious service of my own choosing.
B) Others are allowed to go to religious services of their own choosing.
2. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am not allowed to marry the person I love legally, even though my religious community blesses my marriage.
B) Some states refuse to enforce my own particular religious beliefs on marriage on those two guys in line down at the courthouse.
3. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am being forced to use birth control.
B) I am unable to force others to not use birth control.
4. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am not allowed to pray privately.
B) I am not allowed to force others to pray the prayers of my faith publicly.
5. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) Being a member of my faith means that I can be bullied without legal recourse.
B) I am no longer allowed to use my faith to bully gay kids with impunity.
6. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am not allowed to purchase, read or possess religious books or material.
B) Others are allowed to have access books, movies and websites that I do not like.
7. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) My religious group is not allowed equal protection under the establishment clause.
B) My religious group is not allowed to use public funds, buildings and resources as we would like, for whatever purposes we might like.
8. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) Another religious group has been declared the official faith of my country.
B) My own religious group is not given status as the official faith of my country.
9. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) My religious community is not allowed to build a house of worship in my community.
B) A religious community I do not like wants to build a house of worship in my community.
10. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am not allowed to teach my children the creation stories of our faith at home.
B) Public school science classes are teaching science.
Scoring key:
If you answered "A" to any question, then perhaps your religious liberty is indeed at stake. You and your faith group have every right to now advocate for equal protection under the law. But just remember this one little, constitutional, concept: this means you can fight for your equality -- not your superiority.
If you answered "B" to any question, then not only is your religious liberty not at stake, but there is a strong chance that you are oppressing the religious liberties of others. This is the point where I would invite you to refer back to the tenets of your faith, especially the ones about your neighbors.
In closing, no matter what soundbites you hear this election year, remember this: Religious liberty is never secured by a campaign of religious superiority. The only way to ensure your own religious liberty remains strong is by advocating for the religious liberty of all, including those with whom you may passionately disagree. Because they deserve the same rights as you. Nothing more. Nothing less.
How to Determine If Your Religious Liberty Is Being Threatened in Just 10 Quick Questions | Rev. Emily C. Heath
Yes, the more Republican the south became the less racist it became, thanks for validating my point.
I was going to shrug most of it off, until I was humorously told to brush up my reading on the first amendment. The actual language in it really makes me wonder how such a law needed to even be vetoed.
It's a clear violation of the idea of separation of religious establishment and government by having a law that allows you to invoke your religious belief on others to their disadvantage.
Jim Crow laws were state sanctioned, top-down laws of discrimination. This bill had completely the opposite effect.
You do understand that the Bill of Rights are restrictions on the power of government right? Empowering individuals or private entities to act in accordance with their individual religious conscience is the complete opposite of the iron fist of government compelling an individual or private entity to act against those beliefs.
Hysterical critics would have you believe the bill was an imprimatur for legal discrimination when in fact it only restores or restates the sovereignty of the individual regarding religious conscience. Oh no!!
Jim Crow laws were state sanctioned, top-down laws of discrimination. This bill had completely the opposite effect.
You do understand that the Bill of Rights are restrictions on the power of government right? Empowering individuals or private entities to act in accordance with their individual religious conscience is the complete opposite of the iron fist of government compelling an individual or private entity to act against those beliefs.
Jim Crow laws were state sanctioned, top-down laws of discrimination. This bill had completely the opposite effect.
and this would have been state sanctioned, top-down laws enabling business owners to say, "we don't serve your kind here," so long as it was a "religious belief."
Wow, you really think highly of your fellow countrymen don't you? A nation of bigots rather than the most tolerant nation on earth.
against government intrusion, yes, but you cannot use your religious beliefs to take away the rights of other citizens.
Who the hell am I to deny other human beings their rights because my personal religion doesn't agree with them?
Hate Speech by Anti-Gay Bigot
By Senator Ted Kennedy
EDITOR’S NOTE: This is the text of Senator Ted Kennedy’s opening statement before the Committee on the Judiciary at the hearing on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, September 18, 1992, the model for the Arizona law which has been so controversial.
We will come to order. The brave pioneers who founded America came here in large part to escape religious tyranny and to practice their faiths free from government interference. The persecution they had suffered in the old world convinced them of the need to assure for all Americans for all time the right to practice their religion unencumbered by the yoke of religious tyranny.
That profound principle is embodied in the two great religion clauses of the first amendment, which provide that Congress “shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” But in 1990, the Supreme Court’s decision in Oregon Employment Division v. Smith produced a serious and unwarranted setback for the first amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion.
Before the Smith decision, Federal, State, and local governments were prohibited from interfering with people’s ability to practice their religion unless the restriction satisfied a difficult two-part test — first, that it was necessary to achieve a compelling government interest; and, second, that there was no less burdensome way to accomplish the goal.
The compelling interest test has been the legal standard protecting the free exercise of religion for nearly 30 years. Yet, in one fell swoop the Supreme Court overruled that test and declared that no special constitutional protection is available for religious liberty as long as the Federal, State, or local law in question is neutral on its face as to religion and is a law of general application. Under Smith, the Government no longer had to justify burdens on the free exercise of religion as long as these burdens are “merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision.”
The Supreme Court did not have to go that far to reach its result in the Smith case. As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote of the majority’s ruling in her eloquent and forceful opinion concurring in the result but criticizing the majority’s reasoning,
Today’s holding dramatically departs from well-settled first amendment jurispru dence, appears unnecessary to resolve the questions presented, and is incompatible with our Nation’s fundamental commitment to individual religious liberty.
The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which Senator Hatch and I, and 23 other Senators have introduced, would restore the compelling interest test for evaluating free exercise claims. It would do so by establishing a statutory right that adopts the standards previously, used by the Supreme Court. In essence, the act codifies the requirement for the Government to demonstrate that any law burdening the free exercise of religion is essential to furthering a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of achieving that interest.
The act creates no new rights for any religious practice or for any potential litigant. Not every free exercise claim will prevail. It simply restores the long-established standard of review that had worked well for many years and that requires courts to weigh free exercise claims against the compelling State interest standard. Our bill is strongly supported by an extraordinary coalition of organizations with widely differing views on many other issues. The National Association of Evangelicals, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Coalitions for America, People for the American Way, just to name a few, support the legislation. They don’t often agree on much, but they do agree on the need to pass the Religious Freedom Restoration Act because religious freedom in America is damaged each day the Smith decision stands.
Today, the committee will hear compelling testimony about the destructive impact of the decision. We are fortunate to have a very distinguished group of witnesses and I look forward to their testimony.
Not uber alles, but it certainly should go against something that people are FREE to choose like Religion.
Religion is a choice.
Being gay is not.
Why should your personal choice have more value than my basic human rights?
Oh?no one supports discrimination against gays.
Wow! There's a new topic here. While religion in a free society is a choice; once accepted isn't one then bound to act in accordance with that religion? If one hopes to glorify God in all they do can they knowingly participate or foster an activity which for thousands of years has been taught to be forbidden or unholy?Religion is a choice.
I've spoken previously about no room for discrimination in my field, medicine, but that isn't the issue; no one supports discrimination against gays. But an individual and an event are two separate things.
Read the details of these cases against florists, bakers, etc and you'll see that they serve gays with no hesitation, they only balk when asked to participate in a same-sex marriage.
If the government can force a baker to supply a cake against his religious beliefs why can't they compel a doctor to perform an abortion or a minister to rent out his worship hall?
Three things: This may be the first time National Review has promoted the words of Ted Kennedy. Two, the Arizona law simply echoed this act as well as expanded its own state law to include private entities rather than just individuals. And three, it show how radical and leftist the Democratic has become since 1992. The ACLU once supported what it now actively attacks in court. No national Democratic politician would support such legislation.
Gay rights über alles.