morality can be maintained without religion.
Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that
national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
- George Washington
Posted on 02/27/2014 11:19:59 AM PST by C19fan
A quarter-century ago, I was a legislative reporter in Arkansas assigned to a ceremony honoring Daisy Bates, the civil rights giant who led the Little Rock school integration effort in 1957. As Gov. Bill Clinton spoke and Bates beamed, a hunched old man limped into the room and leaned against a back wall. "Gov. Faubus?" I asked. .......................................................
Safety was his straw man. Religious liberty, like public safety, is a just cause, except when it's used to justify intolerance.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationaljournal.com ...
Except when the majority decide they don’t like your religion.
Tolerance is a just cause, except when it oversteps its bounds and demand active participation in evils, small or great, rather than merely putting up with small evils because the evil inherent in stamping them out is greater.
Martin Luther King (MLK) was a strong influence to forward this evil conscience about discrimination - an individual's right to choose associations. MLK confused the individual morality issue of choosing to exclude blacks with the legal and constitutional issue of the federal government's power and authority to interfere with an individual's choices. (MLK has become some sort of "untouchable" - "Oh, how could you say that about MLK?")
So now, discrimination is generally thought of as a bad word. In American consciousness and lexicon, discrimination is a "bad" thing, making no distinction between an individual's legal right to discriminate and his private moral decision about whether it is "right" to do so. This evil conscience needs to be countered and corrected whenever and wherever possible because an individual has every legal right and duty to discriminate. This is not to be confused with an individual’s moral right and duty to examine how and where they exercise their right which is an issue between that person and his God and no one else. And the federal government has no constitutional power to interfere with either an individual’s legal right or moral right.
So an important step to in taking back our freedoms is changing the consciousness of as many people as possible in the country from thinking that discrimination is "bad" to realizing that discrimination is our God-given right of freedom of choice. Not a five-minute job and may very well require God himself to do that. But people like me will shout it from the mountaintops every chance we get.
So having said all that, what will it take to either override the veto or generate a proposition to amend the AZ constitution? If neither, and you’re an AZ resident consider moving to a state that will uphold your right to discriminate.
A key point, imo.
Tolerance ~ what they demand is celebration and silent participation.
My takeaway: In this great and diverse country, we are capable of protecting people's right to worship freely without tramping others' rights to live freely.BS mr. fournier!
When a Christian baker or wedding photographer tells a gay couple "I'm sorry, but I do not do wedding cakes (or photography) for same-sex "weddings" because I believe marriage is a union of one man and one woman" this does not trample anyone's right to live freely. The gay couple is still free to have their ceremony and to have their cake and eat it too -- as long as they get somebody else to bake it. On the other hand, if you continue to allow some black-robed dictator to proclaim that the Christian baker must bake the wedding cake for the same-sex wedding ceremony, then you are trampling all over that individual's right to live freely along with his religious freedom.
The state can’t coerce people to change how they think or believe.
The only thing the state can enforce is compliance with the law.
Thus, positive law is flawed by nature. As results fall short of intentions, the state responds with ever-more-draconian laws and regs to bring compliance up to original expectations. And of course, the results of these attempts to legislate utopia into being fall even more short of the original goal.
Excellent point. National Journal being ridiculous again. Would she apply the same logic to Freedom of Speech? Should we ban all offensive speech in the name of tolerance? Association is NO DIFFERENT.
“These AZ type laws are going nowhere and even if they pass the Federal Courts will throw them out.”
Maybe. It’s already federal law, and many states have this type of law already. The issue isn’t the law...but the mischaracterization of the proposed law since it would limit a current method of abuse of the law by LGBT groups.
It’s deeper than that. It isn’t simply a refusal to sell them a cake, but a refusal to customize a cake, or perform some other creation of art such as photography. The lawsuits are an attempt to compell speech.
Democrats are already using the “War on Science” meme to bash religion AND climate change “deniers”.
Actually, this case is PRIMARILY about freedom of speech, and secondarily about religion.
Good explanation, thanks.
The gay couple is still free to have their ceremony and to have their cake and eat it too — as long as they get somebody else to bake it. On the other hand, if you continue to allow some black-robed dictator to proclaim that the Christian baker must bake the wedding cake for the same-sex wedding ceremony, then you are trampling all over that individual’s right to live freely along with his religious freedom.
...you would be absolutely amazed at how many posters on this forum, and particularly this topic, try to argue against your above points...they seem to not be able to wrap their heads around the concept that the lesbians in question had every opportunity to still be serviced by somebody else...and that if a vendor charges someone a fee for his services, this somehow vacates his rights of refusal, via a government fiat...
...insanity seems to rule everywhere...
People refuse to admit the God-given truth that homosexuals have a REPROBATE MIND.
Westboro can now sue gay owned business for not providing them services.
How one recreates is now on par with race.
Gun owners need to sue Google etc for not allowing gun ads. Its a constitutionally protected recreation that should be made to be on par with race.
Ping for reference
To summarize this article:
Bend over and take it up the butt, Christians! How DARE you think your right to obey God outweighs their fundamental right to stick their penises into other mens’ butts!
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.