Musk - and so it begins....

[dondub]

Apr 30, 2022 12:52:18 GMT -5 scgal said:

Apr 30, 2022 8:02:36 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

why?  why do you hate that?  i don't hate that FOX News caters to conservatives.  it is nice that conservatives have some sort of communal channel that they can all vibe on.

and woke is so five years ago.  you really should let it go.

I really shouldn't use the word hate, I personally don't like it. 

Woke movement---gave the liberals something else to cry about which is just about everything. 

No one has cried more in the last 5+ years than Donald Trump. As far as whiny snowflakes go, he’s a blizzard.

[tallguy]

Apr 30, 2022 12:52:18 GMT -5 scgal said:

Apr 30, 2022 8:02:36 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

why?  why do you hate that?  i don't hate that FOX News caters to conservatives.  it is nice that conservatives have some sort of communal channel that they can all vibe on.

and woke is so five years ago.  you really should let it go.

I really shouldn't use the word hate, I personally don't like it. 

Woke movement---gave the liberals something else to cry about which is just about everything. 

I think this speaks far more to who you are than to anything about liberals.  Liberals will always speak out in favor of individual rights and liberties, and will always take up the cause of the oppressed.  Conservatives in general are of the opinion that, "It can't happen (or could never happen) to me, so I don't care."  Liberals, in contrast, are of the opinion that, "It could (or does) happen to someone else, so I HAVE TO care." 

Let's try to identify exactly where your bias is.  I'll go back a few years because the case was well-discussed here.  In the Oregon cake matter where the bakery refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, which side do you identify as the ones crying?  Was it the same-sex couple who were refused service, or the bakery owners who claimed a religious exemption from the law? 

[scgal]

Apr 30, 2022 16:39:07 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Apr 30, 2022 12:52:18 GMT -5 scgal said:

I really shouldn't use the word hate, I personally don't like it. 

Woke movement---gave the liberals something else to cry about which is just about everything. 

I think this speaks far more to who you are than to anything about liberals.  Liberals will always speak out in favor of individual rights and liberties, and will always take up the cause of the oppressed.  Conservatives in general are of the opinion that, "It can't happen (or could never happen) to me, so I don't care."  Liberals, in contrast, are of the opinion that, "It could (or does) happen to someone else, so I HAVE TO care." 

Let's try to identify exactly where your bias is.  I'll go back a few years because the case was well-discussed here.  In the Oregon cake matter where the bakery refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, which side do you identify as the ones crying?  Was it the same-sex couple who were refused service, or the bakery owners who claimed a religious exemption from the law? 

I actually gave you a like for this. Made me think. You won't like the answer but I am honest. 

I don't have the opinion since it don't happen to me I don't care. I think you cannot infringe on ones liberties.

As far as the bakery issue, I do have an issue if the gay couple was denied service but that is not what happened. They patronized the bakery and received service before. The bakery claimed a religious exemption for baking a cake for a ceremony that they believe goes against their religious beliefs. That I think was their right, unfortunately that was not the case. 

[scgal]

Apr 30, 2022 16:08:04 GMT -5 dondub said:

Apr 30, 2022 12:52:18 GMT -5 scgal said:

I really shouldn't use the word hate, I personally don't like it. 

Woke movement---gave the liberals something else to cry about which is just about everything. 

No one has cried more in the last 5+ years than Donald Trump. As far as whiny snowflakes go, he’s a blizzard.

I will agree with this

[tallguy]

Apr 30, 2022 19:55:35 GMT -5 scgal said:

Apr 30, 2022 16:39:07 GMT -5 tallguy said:

I think this speaks far more to who you are than to anything about liberals.  Liberals will always speak out in favor of individual rights and liberties, and will always take up the cause of the oppressed.  Conservatives in general are of the opinion that, "It can't happen (or could never happen) to me, so I don't care."  Liberals, in contrast, are of the opinion that, "It could (or does) happen to someone else, so I HAVE TO care." 

Let's try to identify exactly where your bias is.  I'll go back a few years because the case was well-discussed here.  In the Oregon cake matter where the bakery refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, which side do you identify as the ones crying?  Was it the same-sex couple who were refused service, or the bakery owners who claimed a religious exemption from the law? 

I actually gave you a like for this. Made me think. You won't like the answer but I am honest. 

I don't have the opinion since it don't happen to me I don't care. I think you cannot infringe on ones liberties.

As far as the bakery issue, I do have an issue if the gay couple was denied service but that is not what happened. They patronized the bakery and received service before. The bakery claimed a religious exemption for baking a cake for a ceremony that they believe goes against their religious beliefs. That I think was their right, unfortunately that was not the case. 

As I said, conservatives in general don't care about the denial of rights to others that they don't agree with.  And like it or not, that is exactly what you advocated here.  The bakers had a business open to the public.  As a condition of operating that business they agreed to be subject to the laws regulating such businesses.  They broke that law because they did not want to follow it and then cried "religious persecution" when sued for that violation, even though their religious freedom was never at risk. 

Society does have the right to dictate that every member of that society be treated equally under the law.  The ruling against the bakery was the result.  Liberals were of course on the side of equal rights for all.  Conservatives were on the side of denying those rights to people they don't like or agree with.  You are clearly on that side, despite your protestation.  You perceive a right for the bakery that exists only in the minds of conservatives, and use that to override a real right under the law for the couple.  The bakers could have avoided the issue by not having a business open to the public, but they didn't.  That choice obligated them to follow the law, and they didn't.  It is notable also that the monetary judgment imposed on the bakery was not for the initial denial of service but for their actions afterward that endangered the couple.  

[djAdvocate]

the fundamental issue is public accommodation law.  the bakery fell under that governing law, unfortunately for them.

i think we will all recall how this ended, too.  instead of being open to the public, they became a private catering company.  their business probably has not changed much, other than the fact that it probably got a LOT smaller.  i would be surprised if they were still in business.  if you want to do business with the public, and you are covered under public accommodation, you can't discriminate on ANY basis, let alone on the basis of religion.

whether or not a person feels that it is injust is kindof irrelevant.  if you want to do business with a defense contractor, you are probably ISO9000+.  if you want to have a public bakery, you have to obey accommodation law.  period.  if you don't like those governing laws, you need to find something else to do.

[scgal]

Apr 30, 2022 22:15:22 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

the fundamental issue is public accommodation law.  the bakery fell under that governing law, unfortunately for them.

i think we will all recall how this ended, too.  instead of being open to the public, they became a private catering company.  their business probably has not changed much, other than the fact that it probably got a LOT smaller.  i would be surprised if they were still in business.  if you want to do business with the public, and you are covered under public accommodation, you can't discriminate on ANY basis, let alone on the basis of religion.

whether or not a person feels that it is injust is kindof irrelevant.  if you want to do business with a defense contractor, you are probably ISO9000+.  if you want to have a public bakery, you have to obey accommodation law.  period.  if you don't like those governing laws, you need to find something else to do.

I'm good with the ruling. I think their personal religious beliefs should take priority or the issue but that is not the law so it good. 

I would like to say I'm not against gay marriage. Actually in favor of it

[djAdvocate]

May 1, 2022 6:58:20 GMT -5 scgal said:

Apr 30, 2022 22:15:22 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

the fundamental issue is public accommodation law.  the bakery fell under that governing law, unfortunately for them.

i think we will all recall how this ended, too.  instead of being open to the public, they became a private catering company.  their business probably has not changed much, other than the fact that it probably got a LOT smaller.  i would be surprised if they were still in business.  if you want to do business with the public, and you are covered under public accommodation, you can't discriminate on ANY basis, let alone on the basis of religion.

whether or not a person feels that it is injust is kindof irrelevant.  if you want to do business with a defense contractor, you are probably ISO9000+.  if you want to have a public bakery, you have to obey accommodation law.  period.  if you don't like those governing laws, you need to find something else to do.

I'm good with the ruling. I think their personal religious beliefs should take priority or the issue but that is not the law so it good. 

I would like to say I'm not against gay marriage. Actually in favor of it

let's extrapolate.

are you saying that if my religious beliefs say that black people are evil, should i be able to deny them food and shelter?

[scgal]

May 1, 2022 9:36:37 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 1, 2022 6:58:20 GMT -5 scgal said:

I'm good with the ruling. I think their personal religious beliefs should take priority or the issue but that is not the law so it good. 

I would like to say I'm not against gay marriage. Actually in favor of it

let's extrapolate.

are you saying that if my religious beliefs say that black people are evil, should i be able to deny them food and shelter?

No. 
Care to go further this could prove interesting

[djAdvocate]

May 1, 2022 10:46:33 GMT -5 scgal said:

May 1, 2022 9:36:37 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

let's extrapolate.

are you saying that if my religious beliefs say that black people are evil, should i be able to deny them food and shelter?

No. 
Care to go further this could prove interesting

sure.  from this i gather that (you think that) any religious belief that is based on superstition and prejudice is not a subset of "religious freedom".

agree or disagree?

[scgal]

May 1, 2022 10:59:33 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 1, 2022 10:46:33 GMT -5 scgal said:

No. 
Care to go further this could prove interesting

sure.  from this i gather that (you think that) any religious belief that is based on superstition and prejudice is not a subset of "religious freedom".

agree or disagree?

I don't think it is right that you can use religious freedom to be prejudice. I don't think the bakery case was being prejudice since they have served the couple before. It's the act of marriage they felt was wrong

[billisonboard]

May 1, 2022 11:32:36 GMT -5 scgal said:

May 1, 2022 10:59:33 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

sure.  from this i gather that (you think that) any religious belief that is based on superstition and prejudice is not a subset of "religious freedom".

agree or disagree?

I don't think it is right that you can use religious freedom to be prejudice. I don't think the bakery case was being prejudice since they have served the couple before. It's the act of marriage they felt was wrong

My understanding was that they were not against the act of marriage. They made wedding cakes for other couples.

[scgal]

May 1, 2022 11:37:03 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

May 1, 2022 11:32:36 GMT -5 scgal said:

I don't think it is right that you can use religious freedom to be prejudice. I don't think the bakery case was being prejudice since they have served the couple before. It's the act of marriage they felt was wrong

My understanding was that they were not against the act of marriage. They made wedding cakes for other couples.

It was gay marriage that they didn't think would be appropriate to take part in. They didn't care the couple was gay they sold them goods before

[djAdvocate]

May 1, 2022 11:32:36 GMT -5 scgal said:

May 1, 2022 10:59:33 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

sure.  from this i gather that (you think that) any religious belief that is based on superstition and prejudice is not a subset of "religious freedom".

agree or disagree?

I don't think it is right that you can use religious freedom to be prejudiced. 

ok, we agree there, too.

so, the bakery objected to gay marriage (never mind the fact that the cake was for the reception, not the wedding).  on what basis OTHER than prejudice do you think they made that decision?

[scgal]

May 1, 2022 11:52:32 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 1, 2022 11:32:36 GMT -5 scgal said:

I don't think it is right that you can use religious freedom to be prejudiced. 

ok, we agree there, too.

so, the bakery objected to gay marriage (never mind the fact that the cake was for the reception, not the wedding).  on what basis OTHER than prejudice do you think they made that decision?

I think most that are biblically against it interpret passages in the bible to be against it even thou it is not written anywhere that Jesus was against it. As I said I'm fine with it.

I do want to touch base about prejudice thou. I don't agree with prejudice (although i as we all may be judgemental) I do think people who are prejudice have a right to their beliefs whether I agree with them or not. 

[djAdvocate]

May 1, 2022 12:04:53 GMT -5 scgal said:

May 1, 2022 11:52:32 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

ok, we agree there, too.

so, the bakery objected to gay marriage (never mind the fact that the cake was for the reception, not the wedding).  on what basis OTHER than prejudice do you think they made that decision?

I think most that are biblically against it interpret passages in the bible to be against it even thou it is not written anywhere that Jesus was against it. As I said I'm fine with it.

I do want to touch base about prejudice thou. I don't agree with prejudice (although i as we all may be judgemental) I do think people who are prejudice have a right to their beliefs whether I agree with them or not. 

i think your position is contradictory.
you have already stated that prejudice is not a basis for a religious right.  i have asked what this is, if not prejudice?.

i am familiar with the passages in the Old Testament.  were it not for the fact that religious discussions are off limits on the board, i would point out that there are something on the order of 10x the number of references to DIVORCE being an abomination, punishable by death, than "homosexuality".  there is nothing in the bible about marriage, really- nothing productive or helpful to this discussion, anyway.

so, i am left with the same question.  since there is no biblical basis for denying these folks a cake at their RECEPTION (again, not a wedding), what basis is there?  it seems to be something OTHER than "religious" since their sacred text says NOTHING about it.

nothing comes to my mind other than prejudice, i am sorry to say.

[djAdvocate]

the reason i keep harping on this is that if there is NO religious basis, then they can't assert a religious right, can they?

if the answer is YES, then they could assert a billion things that have no religious basis, and make the same claim.  ie- the example i gave earlier.

PS- i am not accusing YOU of anything, here.  i am trying to determine if you think that religious rights exist without any scriptural basis.

[scgal]

May 1, 2022 12:22:08 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

the reason i keep harping on this is that if there is NO religious basis, then they can't assert a religious right, can they?

if the answer is YES, then they could assert a billion things that have no religious basis, and make the same claim.  ie- the example i gave earlier.

PS- i am not accusing YOU of anything, here.  i am trying to determine if you think that religious rights exist without any scriptural basis.

Personally I think the judge got it wrong. I wonder if the judge was more liberal?? Either way i'm good it. 

The problem I see is the interpretation of the bible. 10 people can sit down read it cover to cover and have 100 issues that they can disagree on. Since i'm not very religious i'm not one to give an knowledgeable opinion.

[djAdvocate]

May 1, 2022 12:41:52 GMT -5 scgal said:

May 1, 2022 12:22:08 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

the reason i keep harping on this is that if there is NO religious basis, then they can't assert a religious right, can they?

if the answer is YES, then they could assert a billion things that have no religious basis, and make the same claim.  ie- the example i gave earlier.

PS- i am not accusing YOU of anything, here.  i am trying to determine if you think that religious rights exist without any scriptural basis.

Personally I think the judge got it wrong. I wonder if the judge was more liberal?? Either way i'm good it. 

The problem I see is the interpretation of the bible. 10 people can sit down read it cover to cover and have 100 issues that they can disagree on. Since i'm not very religious i'm not one to give an knowledgeable opinion.

that is not actually an answer to the question.  i didn't ask about the judge, nor about interpretation.

what i asked is if there is no scriptural basis for a belief, can it be asserted as a religious right (in your opinion)?  

[scgal]

May 1, 2022 12:47:47 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 1, 2022 12:41:52 GMT -5 scgal said:

Personally I think the judge got it wrong. I wonder if the judge was more liberal?? Either way i'm good it. 

The problem I see is the interpretation of the bible. 10 people can sit down read it cover to cover and have 100 issues that they can disagree on. Since i'm not very religious i'm not one to give an knowledgeable opinion.

that is not actually an answer to the question.  i didn't ask about the judge, nor about interpretation.

what i asked is if there is no scriptural basis for a belief, can it be asserted as a religious right (in your opinion)?  

We that is just it interpretation. It does say in a passage a man may not lay down with another man other than his wife. I don't think that has anything to do with gay marriage but I can see how someone else might. Getting to the specific question No

[djAdvocate]

May 1, 2022 12:52:05 GMT -5 scgal said:

May 1, 2022 12:47:47 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

that is not actually an answer to the question.  i didn't ask about the judge, nor about interpretation.

what i asked is if there is no scriptural basis for a belief, can it be asserted as a religious right (in your opinion)?  

We that is just it interpretation. It does say in a passage a man may not lay down with another man other than his wife. I don't think that has anything to do with gay marriage but I can see how someone else might. Getting to the specific question No

ok.  we agree again.

the Bible has all kinds of weird stuff in it.  i am not asking whether that can be used as a basis for discrimination.  i am asking exactly the opposite.  in the ABSENCE of such things, no such assertions can be made.  because if we don't agree on that, then all sorts of crazy stuff can be asserted on a religious basis (ie, not getting vaccinated) that has no religious basis whatsoever.

thanks, this has been interesting.

[scgal]

May 1, 2022 12:59:50 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 1, 2022 12:52:05 GMT -5 scgal said:

We that is just it interpretation. It does say in a passage a man may not lay down with another man other than his wife. I don't think that has anything to do with gay marriage but I can see how someone else might. Getting to the specific question No

ok.  we agree again.

the Bible has all kinds of weird stuff in it.  i am not asking whether that can be used as a basis for discrimination.  i am asking exactly the opposite.  in the ABSENCE of such things, no such assertions can be made.  because if we don't agree on that, then all sorts of crazy stuff can be asserted on a religious basis (ie, not getting vaccinated) that has no religious basis whatsoever.

thanks, this has been interesting.

I thought it would be I appreciate the honesty instead of the gotcha and name calling crap so many here go to because you don't see thing their way.

[billisonboard]

May 1, 2022 12:47:47 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 1, 2022 12:41:52 GMT -5 scgal said:

Personally I think the judge got it wrong. I wonder if the judge was more liberal?? Either way i'm good it. 

The problem I see is the interpretation of the bible. 10 people can sit down read it cover to cover and have 100 issues that they can disagree on. Since i'm not very religious i'm not one to give an knowledgeable opinion.

that is not actually an answer to the question.  i didn't ask about the judge, nor about interpretation.

what i asked is if there is no scriptural basis for a belief, can it be asserted as a religious right (in your opinion)?  

What qualifies as a holy text? Does the 1st Amendment prohibit the government from declaring "X" is or isn't and then making a ruling based on it. In my opinion, any written or oral announcement must qualify. That is one of my reasons for supporting an incorporation based non-discrimination standard for businesses. "You don't have to incorporate, but if you choose to do so you agree to ..."

[djAdvocate]

that is a good question, bills, but kindof working backward from where i was.  i was speaking in the most general way.

in the case of the baker, it would pretty clearly be the Bible.

[tallguy]

Here is my problem:

Religion may be a wonderful way to govern one's own life and behavior, but it is perhaps the worst way possible to set law or policy in a pluralistic society.  

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....

Not only is this the First Amendment, but it is the first sentence of the First Amendment, so I think it is pretty clear that this issue was of primary importance to the founders.  These words exist for a reason.  Government needs to stay out of religion, and religion needs to stay out of government.  Everyone in this country has the right to exercise their religious beliefs or practices (along with all of their other rights) however they wish, as long as they do not infringe on the rights of others while doing so.  Nobody has the right to infringe upon another, while everybody has the right to not be infringed upon.  This is codified into law through such things as non-discrimination or the aforementioned public accommodation laws. 

For government to create or accept religious exemption claims for one religion while not doing so for every other one treads dangerously close to establishing a state religion, and is unconstitutional.  For courts to create or accept such a claim at the expense of someone else's rights has no basis in law and is therefore illegitimate.  Who is to say that one religion is more valid than another simply because it is the dominant one in the country?  The safeguarding of individual rights for any person is not dependent on religion and must take precedence over a religious claim as purported in the bakery case.  I would guess that many if not most of the people who call themselves Christian in this country believe that our laws should be based on the Bible, yet almost all would recoil in horror at the mere suggestion that Sharia law (as an example) should be incorporated at all.  To comport with the Constitution and First Amendment, however, they would need to be considered equally.  Both need to be ignored.  There will of course be times where our laws will overlap our religious beliefs, but that cannot be because religious beliefs inform our values and laws.  They are merely congruent in those cases.  Our laws must respect our belief that all should be treated equally.  If we lose that, we have little left.    

[djAdvocate]

a lot of the founders escaped religious persecution by the state.  why on Earth would they want to create a government that could re-impose that same tyranny on them?