Author Topic: Gary Johnson: 'Religious freedom, as a category' is 'a black hole' (Q&A With the Libertarian Candidate for President On Social Issues)  (Read 16637 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,623
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Your entire First Amendment argument is based on a false premise.

There are no religious connotations to a same-sex wedding. It is a ceremony for a civil union with no religious meaning, so that "message" you keep talking about is "I don't like homosexuals", at best.
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline kidd

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 894
Your entire First Amendment argument is based on a false premise.

There are no religious connotations to a same-sex wedding. It is a ceremony for a civil union with no religious meaning, so that "message" you keep talking about is "I don't like homosexuals", at best.

Then why was it SO important that the LABEL "marriage" be applied to a homosexual union?
The only difference between a homosexual union and a homosexual "marriage" is the religious label.

If two homosexuals want to have a party with a cake, almost no one is going to care. I don't hate them. Have fun. Weeeeeeee.
But if they want to mock a religious sacrament, then they've moved towards political activism. In which case I can refuse to participate in the acknowledgement of their message.

Offline jmyrlefuller

  • J. Myrle Fuller
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,409
  • Gender: Male
  • Realistic nihilist
    • Fullervision
Your entire First Amendment argument is based on a false premise.

There are no religious connotations to a same-sex wedding. It is a ceremony for a civil union with no religious meaning, so that "message" you keep talking about is "I don't like homosexuals", at best.
There is religious connotation to participating in ANY same-sex ceremony, marriage or not.

Paul, in 1 Corinthians 5 and 6, explicitly advises Christians "do not even eat with" the sexually immoral—which includes homosexual offenders. In his own words. This is a clause that predates the Constitution by seventeen centuries. We are called expressly not to participate in their sins.

(edit for spelling)
« Last Edit: August 01, 2016, 11:49:50 pm by jmyrlefuller »
New profile picture in honor of Public Domain Day 2024

Offline jmyrlefuller

  • J. Myrle Fuller
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,409
  • Gender: Male
  • Realistic nihilist
    • Fullervision
What's amazing here is that the Kleins set up a corporate entity to shield them against debts, etc incurred by the business, but now, somehow, this business they created to avoid personal liability is a person with protectable First Amendment rights.
What about sole proprietorships and partnerships, the two types of businesses that make up the vast majority of owner-operated businesses?
New profile picture in honor of Public Domain Day 2024

HonestJohn

  • Guest
What's amazing here is that the Kleins set up a corporate entity to shield them against debts, etc incurred by the business, but now, somehow, this business they created to avoid personal liability is a person with protectable First Amendment rights.

Yes, a "person".  A "person" enslaved to it's owners!

Slavery is illegal in America.  We need to emanicipate that "person" from it's servitude!

Free corporations from their shareholders!!!  They deserve FREEDOM!!!

 :tongue2:

HonestJohn

  • Guest
There is religious conotation to participating in ANY same-sex ceremony, marriage or not.

Paul, in 1 Corinthians 5 and 6, explicitly advises Christians "do not even eat with" the sexually immoral—which includes homosexual offenders. In his own words. This is a clause that predates the Constitution by seventeen centuries. We are called expressly not to participate in their sins.

Businesses, which are property, have no religious beliefs.

If you doubt, ask one.  Not a person working at the business, but the establishment itself.

Offline jmyrlefuller

  • J. Myrle Fuller
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,409
  • Gender: Male
  • Realistic nihilist
    • Fullervision
Businesses, which are property, have no religious beliefs.

If you doubt, ask one.  Not a person working at the business, but the establishment itself.
Have you ever heard of a sole proprietorship?

In that form of business, which is the most common form of business (especially small business) in the U.S., the owner IS the business.

(edit for grammar)
« Last Edit: August 01, 2016, 11:51:36 pm by jmyrlefuller »
New profile picture in honor of Public Domain Day 2024

HonestJohn

  • Guest
Have you ever heard of a sole proprietorship?

In that form of business, which is the most common form of business (especially small business) in the U.S., the owner IS the business.

(edit for grammar)

Is a homeowner a home?  No.  A homeowner *OWNS* a home.

And a businessowner owns a business.  He/she is not *THE* business.

Offline jmyrlefuller

  • J. Myrle Fuller
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,409
  • Gender: Male
  • Realistic nihilist
    • Fullervision
Is a homeowner a home?  No.  A homeowner *OWNS* a home.

And a businessowner owns a business.  He/she is not *THE* business.
That's as silly of an argument as trying to claim guns kill people.

No. Guns don't kill people; people kill people.

Likewise, businesses don't bake cakes. People bake cakes.

Without the people actually doing the work, a business is an inanimate object, capable of nothing.
New profile picture in honor of Public Domain Day 2024

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,623
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Previous poster have questioned why Mormons cannot practice polygamy, or why Rastafarians cannot smoke pot. In both cases there is a compelling public interest.

So you and LaL appear to be in agreement with me that laws, both State and Federal, CAN in fact overrule First Amendment protections.

That's refreshing.

Those laws are written and enacted by the people's representatives in the State government in accordance to what THEY believe to constitute a compelling public interest, and just as other legislatures wrote and enacted laws which made the 1A rights of Rastas and Mormons subservient to State laws, the lawmakers in Oregon saw stopping a portion of their citizens from being discriminated against as carrying sufficient compelling public interest to add that verbiage to their statutes, then just like the Rastas and the Mormons have to live with the restrictions on their 1A rights, so do Christian bakers in the State of Oregon.
= = =

Quote
Regarding the Oregon law:
Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is of age, as described in this section, or older.

I would have argued that political orientation is NOT protected by Oregon law. The fact that the homosexual couple focused on this ONE bakery betrays a political attack. The baker's lawyer should have made their political activism the focal point, not their sexual orientation. Such an approach would also work against the neo-Nazis in the example above.

Conspiracy theories?

Really...

The plaintiffs attended a Bridal Show where Sweet Cakes had a booth. They liked what they saw and went to buy a cake.

The rest is a matter of public record.
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline Luis Gonzalez

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,623
  • Gender: Male
    • Boiling Frogs
Then why was it SO important that the LABEL "marriage" be applied to a homosexual union?

So what you're saying is that two atheist heterosexuals can go to the Court house and enter into a civil union officiated by a pantheist magistrate and call their a marriage, but the sexual orientation of another couple somehow takes away their First Amendment right to call their union whatever they want to call it, just as that heterosexual atheist couple did because in the case of the homosexuals the union has a religious connotation but in the case of the atheists it does not?
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, i have others." - Groucho Marx

Offline DiogenesLamp

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,660
So what you're saying is that two atheist heterosexuals can go to the Court house and enter into a civil union officiated by a pantheist magistrate and call their a marriage, but the sexual orientation of another couple somehow takes away their First Amendment right to call their union whatever they want to call it, just as that heterosexual atheist couple did because in the case of the homosexuals the union has a religious connotation but in the case of the atheists it does not?


For most of this Nation's history,  Homosexuals were regarded as non compos mentis.   That is why they locked them up in mental institutions.   


Those men who think they can become women,   in a *NORMAL*   and *FUNCTIONAL*   society,  would also be regarded as non compos mentis.   



People who think they are a dragon  ought also be classified as non compos mentis.   




Eva Tiamat Baphomet Medusa is not a female,   is not a Dragon,   and is not even "Eva Tiamat Baphomet Medusa",   but is instead a  very mentally ill man named "Richard Hernandez". 


The Doctors who performed surgery on him need to be locked up for malpractice,   and this kook needs to be locked up for the welfare of the public,  and for his own.   


Fortunately I don't expect this kook bag to live very long.   Most transgenders kill themselves.   Most homosexuals *also*  kill themselves.   


Suicide is the number one cause of death among both groups,   which ought to go a long way towards convincing rational people that homosexuals are mentally ill.   


‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Offline SirLinksALot

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,417
  • Gender: Male
Your entire First Amendment argument is based on a false premise.

Marriage as an institution HAS meaning to people who take their faith seriously. If the First Amendment is intended to protect anything, it is a person's RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCE. So says the acknowledged Father of the Constitution -- James Madison.

Quote
There are no religious connotations to a same-sex wedding. It is a ceremony for a civil union with no religious meaning, so that "message" you keep talking about is "I don't like homosexuals", at best.

Nope. The message that I am talking about is this --- WE DO NOT WANT TO PARTAKE OF A CEREMONY THAT REDEFINES SOMETHING WE DO NOT BELIEVE IN.

Do not misrepresent people please. Christians are taught NOT to hate the sinner but the sin.

« Last Edit: August 02, 2016, 02:46:09 am by SirLinksALot »

Offline SirLinksALot

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,417
  • Gender: Male
Quote
Why des the baker's right to conscience nullify the customer's right to not be discriminated against?

Once again, you are pointing to the customer when the Klein's are referring to the customer's ACTIONS.

If the baker's conscience is against doing an act, why should the baker's right not be protected by the first amendment?

Quote
The bakers can also go set up a bakery in a State where sexual orientation is not a protected class.

Sexual orientation is a protected class, ACTIONS that people disapprove of should protect the dis-approver.

Let's differentiate between the person and the message.

Quote
So, the least restrictive means would be to preserve both the couple's right tpo not be discriminated against, and to allow the bakers to go set up shop elsewhere where the statutes allow them to deny business based on sexual orientation.

Not on the basis of sexual orientation, on the basis of the MESSAGE that they are FORCED to convey which is against their conscience. I see that you keep harping on the person's identity and keep ignoring the person's actions.


HonestJohn

  • Guest
That's as silly of an argument as trying to claim guns kill people.

No. Guns don't kill people; people kill people.

Likewise, businesses don't bake cakes. People bake cakes.

Without the people actually doing the work, a business is an inanimate object, capable of nothing.

That's exactly the point I'm making.  People have rights, not businesses.

A business cannot say that baking a cake violates it's freedom of religion.  For it's an inanimate object.

The baker can choose, though.  Just the same as any other worker, by 'quitting'.  If the baker owns the property, then the effect is to shut it down.

Offline DiogenesLamp

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,660
That's exactly the point I'm making.  People have rights, not businesses.

A business cannot say that baking a cake violates it's freedom of religion.  For it's an inanimate object.

The baker can choose, though.  Just the same as any other worker, by 'quitting'.  If the baker owns the property, then the effect is to shut it down.


Your sophistry is getting so complex,  i'm having difficulty following it.   


Fortunately for me,  my position is easier to understand.   It is based on this concept called "Natural Law"  which incidentally was the foundation of our system of governance.   


People have a right to do whatever they wish with their own business,   their own property,   and their own person.   

If people wish to discriminate,    it is their freedom to do so.     Barry Goldwater was exactly right to oppose the civil rights legislation of 1964  because he rightly recognized that it would evolve into an abuse of power... and it has.   


People say the government should not be in the business of legislating morality,   but forcing people to do things that they regard as "immoral"   is very much forcing someone else's morality down other people's throats.   

If we are going to be in the business of forcing morality down people's throats,   than I think we should pick one that has a proven track record and historic precedence.

‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Offline Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,783
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan

Your sophistry is getting so complex,  i'm having difficulty following it.   


Fortunately for me,  my position is easier to understand.   It is based on this concept called "Natural Law"  which incidentally was the foundation of our system of governance.   


People have a right to do whatever they wish with their own business,   their own property,   and their own person.   

If people wish to discriminate,    it is their freedom to do so.     Barry Goldwater was exactly right to oppose the civil rights legislation of 1964  because he rightly recognized that it would evolve into an abuse of power... and it has.   


People say the government should not be in the business of legislating morality,   but forcing people to do things that they regard as "immoral"   is very much forcing someone else's morality down other people's throats.   

If we are going to be in the business of forcing morality down people's throats,   than I think we should pick one that has a proven track record and historic precedence.

GREAT post!  :beer:
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Offline jmyrlefuller

  • J. Myrle Fuller
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,409
  • Gender: Male
  • Realistic nihilist
    • Fullervision
That's exactly the point I'm making.  People have rights, not businesses.

A business cannot say that baking a cake violates it's freedom of religion.  For it's an inanimate object.

The baker can choose, though.  Just the same as any other worker, by 'quitting'.  If the baker owns the property, then the effect is to shut it down.
So in order to have free exercise of religion, one must live in poverty with no viable way to make a living?
« Last Edit: August 02, 2016, 01:39:35 am by jmyrlefuller »
New profile picture in honor of Public Domain Day 2024

HonestJohn

  • Guest
If your choice is between your religious beliefs and your job or your business then that is NOT freedom of religion.  You cannot separate the individual from the use of his property like that and make a legitimate claim that there is a difference.  The easy choice is for the consumer to go find a baker who makes those cakes.

The easy choice could just as well be that the baker stop selling wedding cakes.  Or just shut down.  Or cut his nose off to spite his face.

If you want to argue that a person can tell another what to do as "religious freedom"... the you argue that a person can tell another what to do as "religious freedom".  And that person will eventually be telling the baker that... as their "religious freedom".

It isn't a one way street.

Offline jmyrlefuller

  • J. Myrle Fuller
  • Cat Mod
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,409
  • Gender: Male
  • Realistic nihilist
    • Fullervision
The easy choice could just as well be that the baker stop selling wedding cakes.  Or just shut down.  Or cut his nose off to spite his face.

If you want to argue that a person can tell another what to do as "religious freedom"... the you argue that a person can tell another what to do as "religious freedom".  And that person will eventually be telling the baker that... as their "religious freedom".

It isn't a one way street.
It's not telling a person what to do. By saying no to making a cake for a same-sex wedding, it's not telling the gay couple to do anything. The gay couple is the one making the demand under threat of crying "discrimination."

If the baker were to ask something of the gay couple, they're just as free to say no to that request as well, for whatever reason they want. Would it be discrimination against Christians? Perhaps, but not to the point where they'd file a lawsuit the way the gay couple would.
New profile picture in honor of Public Domain Day 2024

Offline DiogenesLamp

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,660
GREAT post!  :beer:


Thanks!  Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in awhile.   :) 

‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

Offline DiogenesLamp

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5,660
The easy choice could just as well be that the baker stop selling wedding cakes.  Or just shut down.  Or cut his nose off to spite his face.

If you want to argue that a person can tell another what to do as "religious freedom"... the you argue that a person can tell another what to do as "religious freedom".  And that person will eventually be telling the baker that... as their "religious freedom".

It isn't a one way street.



Uh,  yes it is.   People have a right to voluntarily trade goods or services.   No one has the right to compel them to do so.   


That is tyranny.   


‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —

HonestJohn

  • Guest


Uh,  yes it is.   People have a right to voluntarily trade goods or services.   No one has the right to compel them to do so.   


That is tyranny.

Yes.  And when one is open for business, one is stating they they wish to trade goods/services within the confines of the law.

If they do not wish this, they are not compelled to stay in business.

Offline SirLinksALot

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,417
  • Gender: Male
Yes.  And when one is open for business, one is stating they they wish to trade goods/services within the confines of the law.

If they do not wish this, they are not compelled to stay in business.

And what is the law? The basic law of the land? Answer -- the Constitution, which gave us the FIRST AMENDMENT ( Yep THE FIRST, not the second, not the third, THE FIRST ).

So, those laws that violate a person's FIRST AMENDMENT rights are inferior, or made INVALID.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2016, 02:43:56 am by SirLinksALot »

HonestJohn

  • Guest
So in order to have free exercise of religion, one must live in poverty with no viable way to make a living?

There are a number of philosophical tracts that argue that.  In essence, the more you have... the more you fear losing.  And that compels you to act to preserve what you have.  Which means that one is not truly free.

---

Some of my personal favorites:

THE USELESS

Hui Tzu said to Chuang Tzu:

"All your teaching is centered on what has no use."


Chuang replied:

"If you have no appreciation for what has no use
You cannot begin to talk about what can be used.
The earth, for example, is broad and vast
But of all this expanse a man uses only a few inches
Upon which he happens to be standing.
Now suppose you suddenly take away
All that he is not actually using
So that, all around his feet a gulf
Yawns, and he stands in the Void,
With nowhere solid except right under each foot:
How long will he be able to use what he is using?"


Hui Tzu said: "It would cease to serve any purpose."


Chuang Tzu concluded:

"This shows
The absolute necessity
Of what has 'no use.' "


THE USELESS TREE

Hui Tzu said to Chuang:

I have a big tree,
The kind they call a "stinktree."
The trunk is so distorted,
So full of knots,
No one can get a straight plank
Out of it. The branches are so crooked
You cannot cut them up
In any way that makes sense.
There it stands beside the road.
No carpenter will even look at it.

Such is your teaching
Big and useless.


Chuang Tzu replied:

Have you ever watched the wildcat
Crouching, watching his prey
This way it leaps, and that way,
High and low, and at last
Lands in the trap.
But have you seen the yak?
Great as a thundercloud
He stands in his might.
Big? Sure,
He can't catch mice!

So for your big tree. No use?

Then plant it in the wasteland
In emptiness.
Walk idly around,
Rest under its shadow;
No axe or bill prepares its end.
No one will ever cut it down.

Useless? You should worry!


THE MARSH PHEASANT

The little marsh pheasant
Must hop ten times
To get a bite of grain.

She must run a hundred steps
Before she takes a sip of water.
Yet she does not ask
To be kept in a hen run
Though she might have all she desired
Set before her.

She would rather run
And seek her own little living
Uncaged.


CONFUCIUS AND THE MADMAN

When Confucius was visiting the state of Chu,
Along came Kieh Yu
The madman of Chu
And sang outside the Master's door:

"0 Phoenix, Phoenix,
Where's your virtue gone?
It cannot reach the future
Or bring the past again!
When the world makes sense
The wise have work to do.
They can only hide
When the world's askew.
Today if you can stay alive
Lucky are you:
Try to survive!

"Joy is feather light
But who can carry it?
Sorrow falls like a landslide
Who can parry it?

"Never, never
Teach virtue more.
You walk in danger,
Beware! Beware!
Even ferns can cut your feetWhen
I walk crazy
I walk right:
But am i a man
To imitate?"
 
The tree on the mountain height is its own enemy.
The grease that feeds the light devours itself.
The cinnamon tree is edible: so it is cut down!
The lacquer tree is profitable: they maim it.
Every man knows how useful it is to be useful.

No one seems to know
How useful it is to be useless.

---

And the one I think sums it up best:


THE TURTLE

Chuang Tzu with his bamboo pole
Was fishing in Pu river.

The Prince of Chu
Sent two vice-chancellors
With a formal document:
"We hereby appoint you
Prime Minister."

Chuang Tzu held his bamboo pole.
Still watching Pu river,
He said:
"I am told there is a sacred tortoise,
Offered and canonized
Three thousand years ago,
Venerated by the prince,
Wrapped in silk,
In a precious shrine
On an altar
In the Temple.

"What do you think:
Is it better to give up one's life
And leave a sacred shell
As an object of cult
In a cloud of incense
Three thousand years,
Or better to live
As a plain turtle
Dragging its tail in the mud?"

"For the turtle," said the Vice-Chancellor,
"Better to live
And drag its tail in the mud!"

"Go home!" said Chuang Tzu.
"Leave me here
To drag my tail in the mud!"