Thwarting the So Gay Nanny State PING!
And a general PING as well.
Posted on 04/12/2015 7:41:10 AM PDT by kanawa
And what have YOU done to stop the murdering of fetuses? At some point, this "judge not" mentality has to stop. Yes, I judge, and I judge harshly. I'm sorry if that offends you or other nominal Christians.
You're right; maybe I AM the one who's wrong. But I'm basing my stand on the inerrant word of God, so I'll take my chances.
Are you a theologian? A lawyer?
Neither. I'm a white heterosexual male with enough common sense to understand that the perverted relationship of a pair of homos is not the same as the marital relationship between a man and a woman. And to understand that Neville Chamberlain didn't win the Second World War; Winston Churchill did.
You won't stop the sin. But you can bless the mess for change.
Try to check your pride and understand that others are indeed grappling mightily with the moral humiliation of Chrisitans, in many ways that keyboarding on a message Forum do not readily reveal. And may God give you clear direction and His full support as you find the best ways to deploy your talents in this fight.
While this may be true in many places of employment, it is not always true. There have been many cases before the courts where nurses had to fight for religious exemptions, and the fights continue.
May God provide just such an opportunity for you to show your real chops, Keyboard Warrior.
You say:
“The ACLU already admitted that it’s a religious objection. The judge unilaterally denied it. The ACLU is crowing that this is a victory for them. So is that following the law or trampling it? Looks like the latter to me.”
the decision says:
“While we all agree that religious freedom is important, no one’s religious beliefs make it acceptable to break the law by discriminating against prospective customers,” said Amanda C. Goad, staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Project. “No one is asking Masterpiece’s owner to change his beliefs, but treating gay people differently because of who they are is discrimination plain and simple.” …
And what I said was that the person bringing the case to court has to have a religious lifestyle to prove that his religious beliefs are being violated.
The ACLU is, as usual, wrong. However, you can’t win against them if your religion is not impeccable.
The ACLU is defining religion the way most fat and happy americans define it, not as a day to day living code, but as something to call on if they feel like it.
As critics repeatedly point out, 98 percent of sexually active American Catholic women practice birth control, and 78 percent of Catholics think a “good Catholic” can reject the bishops’ teaching on birth control.Feb 16, 2012
from http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2010/12/01/pregnant-brides-in-white-dresses/6893
in 1960, only 5 percent of U.S. births were out of wedlock.: today it is nearly 40 percent
You can’t win a moral victory with this kind of cultural practice.
you have to be a practicing faithful in a religion that rejects gay marriage and not in any way adherent to these cultural norms out of teaching with the faith to win against the ACLU
The ACLU fights dirty.
They cannot say that there is no religious argument, but they do. That’s what happens when you go up and then lose against them they rewrite the case.
Watch the cases in which the religious objectors practice the faith.
The ACLU loses and the NYT does not put it on anywhere near the front page
This is a spiritual battle and people think they can practice a life out of touch with religion and win it.
That’s where they are wrong.
OK you are wasting my time and energy and it annoys.
one cannot be forced to perform an abortion.
Name one case in which one was forced to perform an abortion.
The nurses are up against a problem, if they choose to work in ob.
THey bring the cases to court
That IS NOT the same as being forced
time waster
No.
Now is not the time to be clever, to parse words, to give in but not really.
Now is the time to draw the line, Because if we do not do it now the first amendment is lost.
I have heard people who don't understand what the first is about say that "it does not say you have the right to own or run a business" when that is exactly what it does say.
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.
That mean the government may NOT refuse to let you operate your business in accordance with your religious beliefs.
They may not deny you the right to have a business license, own property, vote or anything else just because of your religion.
This is because in Europe they did exactly that. If you were not the official religion you could not own property, you could not own a business, or attend a university, or hold public office or a thousand other things. THAT is why the first amendment is there. Not to say you have to keep your religion under wraps but to say you may boldly proclaim it without being subject to such restrictions.
Stand your ground now or give it up entirely.
The problem is the corruption of morality in jurisprudence, so that Christians are subjected to judgments that would not be inflicted on muslims, hindus or jews in similar circumstances; and worse, for the language of those immoral decisions to enter the stream of stare decisis.
For me to hold this factual observation has been attacked by others on the thread as moral cowardice rather than a realistic strategic assessment of what average Christian business persons are up against, with the goal of finding workable solutions for the church as a group. It's a given that many Christians will be legally crucified before this is over.
Okay; it seems that you are agreeing with my stance at least somewhat. Alinsky presumes that those who live up to their own book of rules will be tripped up by attempting to, but this is a case where such people did so and are being persecuted.
Just because a judge says someone does not have a religious objection does not mean the judge is telling the truth.
It is one thing to cite statistics of people falling away from morality, but to suggest that one give in to the encroaching immorality instead of fighting back, when one is minded to fight back (and thus not falling away) is not a valid religious stance.
One does not “slyly put God into the mix” because there is no concord between Christ and Belial, bottom line. You can’t use Satan’s weapons to attest to God.
“Forced” in my post was a general term meaning that a health employer says all personnel must participate in abortion, or be fired. Therefore, a Christian may be forced to surrender their job.
In many of the cases that have been fought in the courts, the mandate to participate came down the line after the employee had worked for many years in a given hospital and had built up seniority and a good pay that they may not be able to replace. As you mentioned earlier, their only choices are to leave a long career or impoverish themselves by going to court. Fortunately, many have been willing and able to take this fight to the court. The only way to win this battle, as well as the bakery battle, is for these incremental cases to be fought one at a time, as pro-lifers have been doing with abortion. That battle has taken more than 40 years. I expect the gay marriage battles to last equally long.
Christ had to battle theologians and lawyers during His ministry. Not to mention, the Old Testament prophets were not solely chosen out of the priestly tribe of Levi, and Christ Himself was born of the tribe of Judah of whom nothing was said by Moses with respect to priesthood (or theologian-hood if one likes), as mentioned in Hebrews 7:14.
I'm not blaming anyone other than the homos and their pink shirt gestapo for the oppression of Christian rights. And I used the word "nominal" because I don't believe one has to be a practicing Christian to be appalled by the tyranny confronting religious freedom. I certainly don't expect anyone else to fight my battle and if I quail when my time comes, that will be between me and my Maker. Fight your own battle as you choose. I'm convinced that the only successful resistance will come when we take up arms to protect the treasure God has given us. It's not at that point yet, but it will be soon.
Thwarting the So Gay Nanny State PING!
And a general PING as well.
Show us where that has occurred
I agree with the gist of what you are saying. What seems to be the problem here is that traditional contitutionalists are divided and conquered already. The days of sweeping civil rights decisions coming out of the courts in favor of the little guy are in eclipse. The left has come to dominate discourse to such a degree that everything on which our constitution was based is now radioactive and considered bigotry. As in every revolution, the little guy takes the most enemy fire, not the politicians who send them into battle.
So where is the big, cohesive traditional Christian push-back? Where will it come from, and who will or can lead it? Who is the one who can draw the line — when the churches themselves are infiltrated not only with militant gays, feminists and atheists, cannot agree among themselves, fight religious wars even here on FR, and are more than eager to tell others to stand on the front lines from behind a keyboard?
This situation took over a century of careful planning and incremental destruction by the Socialist International, the Fabian Socialists and assorted marxist careerists like Alinsky, Clinton, and their useful idiots like Ted Kennedy. And what many seem to want to do is kick the victims instead of lending moral support to any and all ways to discuss tactics and strategy without lapsing into the same tired accusations that certain freepers just aren’t Christian enough or patriot enough.
The way conservatives shoot into the circle disgusts me.
It just paranoia. And to consider that brainwashed brainwashed is pure ridiculousness
End of conversation
end
On that last sentence, we agree.
Yeah. I have time for general terms in a conversation about strict law cases
Leave me alone
Blech
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.