The Religious Left

[Whythink]

You have the right to adhere to your religious beliefs, so long as they do not take from others rights, without limitation. Someone else's opinion of the rightness of your exercise therein is irrelevant.



:shrug: simply because you don't understand the belief system doesn't give you the right to stomp on those who adhere to it.

In the meantime, if you won't defend the rights of others, why should you exercise any?

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

I understand, live it. Exactly why I call it what it is.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[code1211]

I used to be a Republican. But, then I saw they no longer stood for the things I believe are important: rule of law, small government, national security, freedom of religion, opportunity, etc. So, I understand your curiosity.

This may not be the thread to delve into it, but I found sometime in the early y2K's that the GOP was more about representing primarily their base, and not the rest of the country.

Having been raised in a union household and coming of age as a Teamster, I was a Democrat as a young voter.

At some point in the 80's, it occurred to me that I had very little in common with Democrats. I voted for Carter the first time he ran. Not the second, so that isolates the timing of my personal change.

Then I, as you, became aware that the Republicans were/are as bad as the Dems.

My political positions are pretty much a grab bag from all over the political spectrum, but I use logic to support them so the Democrat approach to things seems alien to me. In the end, our representatives should be responsible with our tax dollars and stay out of our lives. Neither the Republicrats or the Democans seem to be able to do this. Trump at least pays lip service to this. We'll see if he can get his agenda passed...

As far as a party representing their base, I guess I'd ask you who do you think they should represent?

 

[cpwill]

I understand, live it. Exactly why I call it what it is.

:shrug: whether you think someone else is adequately applying their religious beliefs is immaterial to whether or not they have the right to do so.

 

[code1211]

because we do not support hate crimes or their depiction

the one cake has a hate supportive message, the other does not

Happy Wedding Day Dave and Sam vs. a swastika

unless you see them to be the same?

The point of the First Amendment does not imply that Code1211 must agree with the message for the message to be protected speech.

Is there a clause in there that specifies that _Sal must agree with the message for the message to be protected speech?

I have always thought that the entire need for the first amendment was to protect speech that is NOT popular.

Can you present a case that supports your reading of the First Amendment?

<snip>
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
<snip>

I don't see the clause demanding good manners, good sense or good form. Do you?

 

[cpwill]

so if I am black and the stores in my town don't want to serve me, then I have to drive however many miles it takes or move and you think that right should be protected?

It's a matter of competing rights. If we are to run over one person's rights, we have to have good justification for doing so.


There are three issues at play.

1. The right to Association, which carries with it an inverse right not to Associate. Generally, we should no more force someone to sell to you than we should force you to buy from them (a law stating that all bakeries have to support same sex marriages is the equal inverse of a law stating that all gays have to support Chik Fil A, and both are abusive. That doesn't mean we can never pass them - sometimes the need can be truly terrible enough that we can force people to buy chik fil a, join the military, buy health insurance, etc.).

2. Freedom of Conscience and Religion, which is more strongly protected, because of its primacy. If you believe selling to someone of a different race is immoral, then no, we shouldn't force you to do so unless we can show a compelling state interest (a compelling interest is that which relates directly to core Constitutional issues) in using the threat of violence against you to violate your will and force you to do so, and when we do so, we are required to do so in the least invasive/restrictive manner.

3. The State has a compelling interest in ensuring that it's citizens are not locked out of entire industries. This has two expressions:

A: If a group is effectively denied access to a service (note, this is not the same as "denied the ability to use a particular provider of that service") because all providers refuse them, the state has an interest in forcing at least some of those providers to do so.

B: If a group is effectively denied access to an industry (for example, if we were to pass a law stating that all Grocers must first deny that the Lord their God is One, or handle and sell pork products, we would be effectively banning Jews and Muslims from being Grocers)​

So, if (for example) every single provider of a service refused to provide to you because of your race within an area accessible by you, then, yes, the State can make the argument (which does not mean it will win - if, for example, the providers in question is the one prostitute in a city, you still don't have the right to force them to have sex with you) that a compelling interest allows them to force a provider to provide.



If, however, there are half a dozen bakeries within a 10 mile radius who would love to make your Nazi or SSM or Race-Mixing or Whatever-Hot-Button-You-Like cake..... then no. There is no government interest in violating the rights of those particular bakers.

 

[code1211]

The state should provide to all who need. Most people who seem lazy, are in reality disabled.

I'm not disagreeing with what you say, but I am curious why you say it in that way.

Do you have a link to data that supports this?

I have always been both mindful and thankful that I was born here and now. In almost all ways, I have it better than Julius Caesar or Louis XIV. Miracles are an every day occurrence in our hospitals. I can travel from Indianapolis to New York and take in a play in a few hours time. Ben Franklin needed about a week to get to Virginia from Philly. Ben was a far bigger fish in a far bigger pond than I.

More importantly, though, with pretty much no discernible skills, I am living a very comfy life.

I know various immigrants who are also comfy, more comfy than they have ever been, speaking broken English and sending money home.

What a country!

Anyway, that's why I'm asking.