(03-20-2017 10:54 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  Atheism is not a religion, any more than not believing in Santa Claus is a religion.

I will admit that going out of your way to tell people your point of view when you're atheist when it isn't wanted can be rude, every bit as much as if a religious person tried to convince me of their point of view. I generally leave people alone unless they start in on it first.

In an area that is probably 80% Christian, I get more Atheists trying to convert me than Christians. Many times over. Aside from Jehovah's Witnesses coming around a couple times per year and when I voluntarily attend church, I haven't had a Christian pushing their religion on me in decades.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

(03-20-2017 04:59 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 04:58 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-19-2017 10:37 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Everyone has the freedom to not practice a religion. Note to those who don't: That same freedom means those who want to can.

Only so far as you do it in your private homes or places of worship, where everyone agrees to said practices.

You don't get to restrict the freedom or economic opportunities of anyone else here on earth, simply because your god commands it.

Yea I'm still trying to figure out what religious liberty is in danger here.

I'm trying to figure out what liberties and economic opportunities are being restricted

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

(03-20-2017 05:01 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  You lose your Religion if you were molested by a Priest as a child. Just plain evil to do that to a child.

But it is OK if the alphabet soup does the same to a child.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

(03-21-2017 12:49 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  So here's another example..

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/San-F...014916.php

South Dakota passed a law which allows religious based entities, like Catholic charities, to not place children with unmarried or same-sex couples when facilitating adoptions.

This is *NOT* a ban on gay adoption, and it's *NOT* a ban on organizations placing kids in gay homes. This is simply a law that will allow some religious based charities not to violate their faith while serving the public.

And for this, San Fran, like the petulant SJW child that they are, will ban city officials from traveling to SD on business. Add SD to Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina and Tennessee.

As a Liberal and an Agnostic(yes i leave my options open) I go back and forth on this..in the end i find it hard to rationalize government forcing either of these(unmarried adoptions or same sex adoptions) upon a religion. Europeans came to this continent seeking religious freedom and it is one of the main principals of our democracy. It must always be defended.

To the other point of the OP, social mores evolve, some things once considered taboo are now widely accepted as social norms. They are also very subjective and i dont believe Alito, as a supreme court justice, should be offering his opinion here.

(03-21-2017 12:49 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  So here's another example..

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/San-F...014916.php

South Dakota passed a law which allows religious based entities, like Catholic charities, to not place children with unmarried or same-sex couples when facilitating adoptions.

This is *NOT* a ban on gay adoption, and it's *NOT* a ban on organizations placing kids in gay homes. This is simply a law that will allow some religious based charities not to violate their faith while serving the public.

And for this, San Fran, like the petulant SJW child that they are, will ban city officials from traveling to SD on business. Add SD to Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina and Tennessee.

Oh, really? So where are the state funded SD agencies that will put kids in Gay homes? Will they be located in all SD areas that the publically funded discriminatory agencies are? And what about the kids that are LGBT? Are they to be forced into some non-supportive homes?

(03-20-2017 10:04 PM)Paul M Wrote:  So what god is this you speak of?

You want to use your god as an excuse to limit the freedom and economic opportunities of other Americans.

(03-20-2017 11:43 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  So we can restrict the religious practice of people to their private homes and churches... Nowhere else..

They can practice anywhere, so long as the actions of such practices don't prevent anyone else from being able to do whatever it is that they want and are allowed to do.

(03-20-2017 11:43 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Oh the irony...

There is nothing ironic about preventing someone from wrongly preventing another person from doing something.

That's simply the correct thing to do, which should be (and in many cases is) the law and enforced by government.

(03-21-2017 12:49 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  South Dakota passed a law which allows religious based entities, like Catholic charities, to not place children with unmarried or same-sex couples when facilitating adoptions.

A state law allowing open discrimination should be preempted by a federal law disallowing it.

Otherwise, at a minimum, any such discriminating charity should not be allowed to receive a cent of public money.

Will someone kindly say what these "freedom and economic opportunities" being limited are. Jezz, more broken records.

(03-21-2017 08:51 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Oh, really? So where are the state funded SD agencies that will put kids in Gay homes?

Let's start with child protective services.

Quote:Will they be located in all SD areas that the publically funded discriminatory agencies are?

I'm pretty sure south Dakota public services is located everywhere in south dakota.

Quote:And what about the kids that are LGBT? Are they to be forced into some non-supportive homes?

So... let's get this straight... You're ok with a test that excludes heterosexual christians "non-supportive home" but you're not ok with one that excludes homosexuals..

That's interesing.

we know tom, we know... You believe two things

(1) The government should have skin in every game and (2) that one penny from the state means the state owns your soul.

I'm sue "some animals are more equal than others" is coming soon.

(03-21-2017 09:49 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 08:51 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Oh, really? So where are the state funded SD agencies that will put kids in Gay homes?

Let's start with child protective services.

Quote:Will they be located in all SD areas that the publically funded discriminatory agencies are?

I'm pretty sure south Dakota public services is located everywhere in south dakota.

Quote:And what about the kids that are LGBT? Are they to be forced into some non-supportive homes?

So... let's get this straight... You're ok with a test that excludes heterosexual christians "non-supportive home" but you're not ok with one that excludes homosexuals..

That's interesing.

we know tom, we know... You believe two things

(1) The government should have skin in every game and (2) that one penny from the state means the state owns your soul.

I'm sue "some animals are more equal than others" is coming soon.

lol...

(03-21-2017 09:07 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 11:43 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  So we can restrict the religious practice of people to their private homes and churches... Nowhere else..

They can practice anywhere, so long as the actions of such practices don't prevent anyone else from being able to do whatever it is that they want and are allowed to do.

Given the SJW's whinging at hearing things they don't like that means home and church... And that, my friend, is not much more religious liberty than people in China have.

Quote:

(03-21-2017 12:49 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  South Dakota passed a law which allows religious based entities, like Catholic charities, to not place children with unmarried or same-sex couples when facilitating adoptions.

A state law allowing open discrimination should be preempted by a federal law disallowing it.

Liberty be damned..

(03-20-2017 10:54 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  Atheism is not a religion, any more than not believing in Santa Claus is a religion.

I will admit that going out of your way to tell people your point of view when you're atheist when it isn't wanted can be rude, every bit as much as if a religious person tried to convince me of their point of view. I generally leave people alone unless they start in on it first.

Atheism requires a leap of faith that there is no God when they can't prove it, just as religion requires a leap of faith when there is no tangible proof.

Agnostics are just wishy-washy and aren't willing to take a leap of faith.

(03-21-2017 08:51 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 12:49 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  So here's another example..

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/San-F...014916.php

South Dakota passed a law which allows religious based entities, like Catholic charities, to not place children with unmarried or same-sex couples when facilitating adoptions.

This is *NOT* a ban on gay adoption, and it's *NOT* a ban on organizations placing kids in gay homes. This is simply a law that will allow some religious based charities not to violate their faith while serving the public.

And for this, San Fran, like the petulant SJW child that they are, will ban city officials from traveling to SD on business. Add SD to Kansas, Mississippi, North Carolina and Tennessee.

Oh, really? So where are the state funded SD agencies that will put kids in Gay homes? Will they be located in all SD areas that the publically funded discriminatory agencies are? And what about the kids that are LGBT? Are they to be forced into some non-supportive homes?

There is no right to adopt. Agencies do home studies to determine that it is an appropriate home.

Most American adoptions are done by the birth parents ("open adoption"). They choose who gets to be parent. The agencies, many of which are faith based and many others are individually run, merely screen applicants.

For foreign adoptions, they do choose who they will sponsor, but the foreign government still has a say.

Without an ability to choose as with South Dakota's, agencies will simply cease to do adoptions.

If there is a market for gays to adopt (which there is), then agencies that service those people will meet the demand (and they do).

(03-21-2017 09:07 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  A state law allowing open discrimination should be preempted by a federal law disallowing it.

Otherwise, at a minimum, any such discriminating charity should not be allowed to receive a cent of public money.

Ready to get called on your bullshaq?

How many of the backery's, florists, and photographers who the gaystapo had sought to crush were getting public money?

People like you and tom throw "public money" out there because it makes your brand of totalitarianism sound rational and reasonable.

But when you get down to brass tacks it's not about the public money, not at all. At your core uyou just want to crush people you disagree with.

(03-20-2017 09:01 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 08:53 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Being left alone to exercise your right is a benefit?

Having the state fund groups that don't hire or serve non-evangelicals or persons living outside the dictates of their faith, especially if there's no mandate for employment or service for those denied inclusion in that funding is most definitely a special benefit, and one that the GOP/religious right is actively campaigning for.

lol

Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(03-20-2017 05:01 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 10:45 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Alito is correct. Especially when you consider that we currently have a ban on Muslims.

We do? Since when?

I still want to hear about this supposed Muslim ban we have.

(03-21-2017 09:35 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Will someone kindly say what these "freedom and economic opportunities" being limited are.

No one need answer such an irrelevant, strawman question. The actual discussion is at a higher level than arbitrarily listing off a million things.

That discussion is if people should be allowed to use an excuse of "serving my god's will" to commit crimes, like discrimination. If you'd like to engage in it, then come up with an intelligent argument to posit.

(03-21-2017 10:01 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  not much more religious liberty than people in China have.

You'd like to hold your church service at a public park? Can't do that, separation of church and state.

Why is the "limitation" of holding services on private land a big deal?

(03-21-2017 10:01 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Liberty be damned..

Your definition of liberty is being able to commit crimes, like discrimination, in the name of your god??

Thank goodness such a silly definition carries no weight in this country.

(03-21-2017 10:02 AM)bullet Wrote:  Atheism requires a leap of faith that there is no God when they can't prove it, just as religion requires a leap of faith when there is no tangible proof.

I agree and hold the same viewpoint. And I don't see that as being a jape against Atheism.

Neither side can have proof. So one way or another, you're just guessing what happens (or doesn't happen) after you die.

(03-21-2017 10:10 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  you just want to crush people you disagree with.

I just want to prevent any American from using the excuse of serving some arbitrary god's will in order to commit crimes, like discrimination, against any other American, regardless which states they reside in.

(03-21-2017 10:02 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 10:54 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  Atheism is not a religion, any more than not believing in Santa Claus is a religion.

I will admit that going out of your way to tell people your point of view when you're atheist when it isn't wanted can be rude, every bit as much as if a religious person tried to convince me of their point of view. I generally leave people alone unless they start in on it first.

Atheism requires a leap of faith that there is no God when they can't prove it, just as religion requires a leap of faith when there is no tangible proof.

Agnostics are just wishy-washy and aren't willing to take a leap of faith.

XACLY!

none of us really know with certainty...hence, faith

the importance is within the message and how it's relayed via culture....

IMHO, it's why hey-zeus replicated over time.....

#coexist

#culturalpickle

(03-21-2017 10:54 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(03-21-2017 10:01 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  not much more religious liberty than people in China have.

You'd like to hold your church service at a public park? Can't do that, separation of church and state.

At no time, in our history, is that what the establishment clause meant. Sorry but there have always been prayers before sessions of congress which is prima facie evidence that the founders did not intend what you describe above.

You're either incredibly ignorant or a troll..

Quote:Why is the "limitation" of holding services on private land a big deal?

Because it's totalitarianism at its finest.

Quote:Your definition of liberty is being able to commit crimes, like discrimination, in the name of your god??

No.... My definition of liberty is respecting our differences and upholding the right to speech, worship, and association. All with minimal interference from the majority.

Quote:

(03-21-2017 10:10 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  How many of the backery's, florists, and photographers who the gaystapo had sought to crush were getting public money?

People like you and tom throw "public money" out there because it makes your brand of totalitarianism sound rational and reasonable.

But when you get down to brass tacks it's not about the public money, not at all. At your coreyou just want to crush people you disagree with.

I just want to prevent any American from using the excuse of serving some arbitrary god's will in order to commit crimes, like discrimination, against any other American, regardless which states they reside in.

I went ahead and reinserted the part that pointed out your deceptiveness. It's the bold italic..

So... Are you ready to stop pretending that the amount of government money in a scenario has literally nothing to do with your desire to crush an organization?

I mean be honest about it.

(03-21-2017 12:20 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  there have always been prayers before sessions of congress

That doesn't bother me, it's just tradition. It's meaningless.

(03-21-2017 12:20 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  Because it's totalitarianism at its finest.

Of course it's not.

You'll have to do better than "any law I don't like, is totalitarianism". Tough s___.

(03-21-2017 12:20 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  My definition of liberty is respecting our differences and upholding the right to speech, worship, and association.

No one thinks you shouldn't be able to do those things. Do them, as you please.

Simply: you're not allowed to pretend that illegal actions taken under the guise of "respecting the right to worship" are permitted.

(03-21-2017 12:20 PM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  stop pretending that the amount of government money in a scenario has literally nothing to do with your desire to crush an organization?

I truly don't follow you. I desire to crush no one.

(03-21-2017 10:53 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 05:01 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 10:45 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Alito is correct. Especially when you consider that we currently have a ban on Muslims.

We do? Since when?

I still want to hear about this supposed Muslim ban we have.

Oh wait. It was supposed to start on the 16th but it got stopped again I think.