Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: noiseman
The best argument against this "wall of separation" progressive revisionist history is to point out ...

... the "free exercise" clause of the First Amendment. In effect, it says that just as Congress shall make no law ESTABLISHING a state religion, neither shall it prohibit a religion from being practiced.

"Being practiced" doesn't mean going to a steepled building on Sunday and singing hymns. At least to Christians, it means living a Gospel, a life in accord with the Holy Spirit, and at peace with God's holy word. Forcing a tradesman to support the abomination of homosexuality is to deny him the right to practice his religion. And all so a couple of fags can have a cake at their perverted ritual, a cake they can get a hundred other places.

This ruling must be struck down on the basis that it defies the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment.

20 posted on 06/26/2017 3:04:40 PM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies ]


To: IronJack

No Country that has Forced Speech is free.

I would not force a Jewish baker to write “Jesus is Messiah” on a cake.

I would not force a Muslim baker to write “Jerusalem is for the Jews” on a wedding cake.

I would not force a BLM member to write “Cops are the Best!’ on a cake, either.

I would not force anyone to write or say anything that is against his or her conscience. No matter how profoundly I disagree with them.

If Jack Phillips goes to jail because he won’t write wedding greetings for a sodomy ceremony, there is

NO

religious freedom in this country.


21 posted on 06/26/2017 4:17:56 PM PDT by Persevero (Democrats haven't been this nutty since we freed their slaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson