Slippery Slope
- Thread starter countryroads89_rivals
- Start date
No slant in that article. Rolls eyes
How you feel about a christian baker who won't make a cake for a gay couple then is fined, basically losing their business? Not easier to just find someone else? Why do people feel the need to take away personal freedoms?
Out of here before I get caught up in this for the next hour
Really? Quite the opposite Ted Cruz Jr. We liberals love the constitution. Especially the First Amendment where it says "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."
Us liberals aren't telling you right wingers how to practice your religion (which is really why the country was founded, the Church of England was dictating everything regarding Christianity) so don't tell us liberals how to live, what to think and take our freedoms away from us in the name of religion. Literally, if that Bill were to pass, I could rape and get away with it in the name of "religion". You right wingers have lost your freaking mind, what little you had to begin with. If you were honestly trying to prevent pastors from being forced to marry same sex couples, this Bill isn't even necessary. Any Justice of the Peace or Magistrate, elected official with the licensed ability to marry, is required to marry same sex couples already. The Supreme Court of the United States already ruled. [winking]
I made that exact point above, dimwit.
And, if you research further, and read the comments during session regarding this bill and watch videos of those speaking about this bill ... everything is based around conservative Christians.
While it might not have been explicitly stated as such in the articles, the tone was obvious that it was the conservative Christians they were thinking about and the actual speeches made (found via other sources) confirms that.
So ... you were absolutely 100% wrong when you called CountryRoads a liar ... even if that statement was directed towards the author of the article.
As usual ... all of your insults and name calling and everything else is around a topic/statement that you are completely wrong about. Go figure.
You cant rape someone in the name of religion because of that bill. Why are libs dishonest?
Here's what the Bill says:
"
(a) State action may not burden a person's right to exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless it is demonstrated that applying the burden to that person's exercise of religion in this particular instance:
(1) Is essential to further a compelling governmental interest; and
(2) Is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
(b) This article shall be construed in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise to the maximum extent permitted by the term of this article and the state and federal Constitutions.
(c) A person whose exercise of religion has been burdened, or is likely to be burdened, in violation of this article may assert such violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in any judicial or administrative proceeding. The person asserting such a claim or defense may obtain appropriate relief, including relief against the state or its political subdivisions, including, but not limited to, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, compensatory damages, and costs and attorney fees.
(d) All laws and state action in existence at the time of the enactment of this article are subject to this article. Any law or state action adopted after the time of enactment of this article is also subject to this article, unless the Legislature explicitly excludes the application of this article to a law by reference to this article."
It is very broad and gives very liberal power to anyone claiming practically anything in the name of religion.
Just because someone told you this on facebook doesnt make it true. You have the responsibility to apply common sense.
I will walk right a few hundred yards down to Rt 60 and tell exactly that at the top of my lungs at southern WV. One cannot support the modern Democratic Party and be true to the Word.
The justice system neutered? Hyperbolic much? Something tells me your understanding of the justice system is a bit limited. This would literally affect like .000001% of "the justice system." And, the bill isn't some kind of carte blanche. It merely provides for judicial resolution without somebody having to spend 6 figures defending their religious beliefs in "the justice system." And, the "law" to prohibit the free exercise castrates the second most basic right (behind speech) with which the Founders were concerned. It is mind numbing how uninformed the masses are about our law and history. The Federalist Papers ought to be required reading.
You know, if everybody would just be a little nicer to each other (both ways...there is ZERO tolerance on either side of this debate), nothing like this would be necessary. But, some of the "right" just want to be mean to people and some in the "left" want to force others to agree with them (as opposed to just fair treatment ...and if they don't agree, they're persecuted). Seriously, not to get all Rodney King, but I don't get why we can't live and let live. I would never, ever, ever want a service from somebody that doesn't want to serve me. F 'em. There are other people that will take my money. Going to court over isn't trying to get the service wanted. It's about advancing the agenda.
Do you think I should be able to force a practicing Muslim caterer to cater an event at which I want bacon wrapped shrimp served? I seriously doubt it but as things now stand one could do exactly that. This law would also protect a Muslim service provider from being forced to participate in Christian (or Hindu or Pagan or whatever) ceremony, too.
I get your point, but that "article" is actually almost all opinion and a lot of less than true statements.
You must also not pay attention. There has been a huge rift between the establishment GOP and the "conservatives" for years (I put that in quotes because I suspect you mean the religious right....There's a rift between the real conservatives (of the more libertarian variety) and the religious right conservatives, too). Both major parties are showing fault lines.
I am not the one suggesting this law wiuld allow someone to rape a person because of their religious belief. You could not be more ridiculous.
"All laws and state action in existence at the time of the enactment of this article are subject to this article"
That's pretty plain to me.
Are you aware that "slippery slope" arguments and ridiculous hyperbole (like your rape nonsense) are pretty much summarily dismissed by almost any practitioner? They're the crutch of the weak minded or I'll armed. The person that makes such arguments and statements are usually pretty much dismissed, too. We actually laugh at them. Literally.
Nice try....So typical. I act like I was looking for something else and Wow. Look what I stumbled across those rascally Republicans are trying to let the Christians be allowed to break any law they want. That is pitiful. Butt hurt!!!!!!!
Legislation like this, and in particular, wording of legislation like this, shows how dumb our current legislature is.
As partisan as you are, the GOP could bring forward legislation that would track exactly along with the Dems agenda and you would come on here telling us how horrible it is simply because it's the GOP putting it forward.
Threads like this and posts like yours show us how dumb facebook lawyers are.
Mmmmkay
So the real conservatives and the pseudo conservatives aren't in the GOP and aren't conservatives at all.
My bad ... I need to modify my statement to blame the liberals ... I guess.
I don't think that was what he was intending when he made that comment. I agree with his sentiments at least as I understood them. I do believe there are fault lines within each party that affects the primaries and affect legislative support and or action. For instance, you have the crazy liberal environmental whackos. Those guys run completely counter to what is good for the labor union wing of the party. I put the enviro loons in about the same category as I do the religious loons and the same as the financial loons (the true socialists). They all represent the polar regions of their party.
As I have said, I really think there is a third party if only in ideals which comprise the vast majority of the people. The hard middle as I'll call it. Conservative fiscally, not religious or at least those who don't allow religion to influence their decisions, personal freedom oriented. Hell, you might call them the "just run the damn government and leave me alone and do right by the people" party. Not sure what you would call it, but if it ever gained some traction, I think most would be all over it.
An interesting thought here. One question I don't think is solvable is there are different levels of "conservative fiscally". And that brings me to another thought in which Cruz keeps pounding.
He says if you are pro-choice, you are not a conservative. I know it is rare now but there was a time in which there were many pro-choice republicans. I know being a conservative and being a republican are two different things but the republicans I knew that were pro-choice were very conservative. They just simply did not buy into the pro-life argument. But in today's world, if you are not lock-step on certain subjects such as abortion, you are not a conservative and should be thrown out of the GOP.
Do you think a pro life Democrat could get the party nomination and win the general election? I don't think that would ever happen.
You pretty much described the Libertarian Party ...
I think we'd be much better off if they had a larger voice.
I agree with that, and I actually agree with his statements. I do, however, feel as if they are irrelevant to this conversation and topic. It is all GOP members pushing this bill, and it's the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act". How in the world is that not the conservative faction of the GOP?
As far as anti-discrimination laws are concerned, it does neuter the system. Somebody can simply say that they discriminated based on "sincerely held religious beliefs". Where is the burden of proof then? Is it on the prosecutor to try to prove or disprove whether or not the person "sincerely" holds those beliefs?
How far does it go? If I declare myself a rastafarian can I grow, possess, and smoke weed? It is, after all, my "sincerely held religious belief".
Now, the middle part of your statement, I agree with. "Live and let live". However, my version of that doesn't include sanctioning discrimination. If you own a bakery and somebody wants to buy a cake, sell them the cake. Who are you to pass judgement based on who they love or what religion they are or anything else?
As for the Muslim, or Jew, or anybody else not serving a specific food. One, if they were going to do that, they shouldn't be in that business in the first place, but secondly, as long as that policy is the same for everybody that walks in the door, that's not discrimination and no, they shouldn't be forced to do it, and I don't think they can now with the laws the way they are. In the case of the baker, "I'll sell this to you, but not them", is discrimination. We've covered this on the board ad nauseum, but just how sincerely does the baker hold those beliefs? Do they confirm a "qualifying" divorce in the case of second marriages? Do they ask if the couple has had premarital sex? Or are they just cherry picking their beliefs to validate their bigotry? And if so, does that pass the "sincerely held religious beliefs" test?
I'm all for religious freedom. If your business/career/job is legitimately religion based (a Jewish deli that only serves kosher food), then you shouldn't be forced to do anything against that religion. I will be screaming about it if a pastor is ever forced to perform a gay marriage in their church ... that's wrong.
As the title says ... this seems like an extremely slippery slope.
Not to mention that this state has a LOT of issues and our elected leaders should probably be more focused on getting us off of the bottom of the list on everything.
Actually the bakery that was ostracized did do business with the gay couple, knew they were gay, and provided all products asked for, except for a wedding cake with two of the same sex on the cake. It's not passing judgment on them, it's wanting to take no part of what they consider sin. I do a lot of things that you all would consider abnormal. One not so abnormal is never being alone with someone of the opposite sex other than my family. That includes eating lunches, etc. Another a little more abnormal is I never have a premium movie channel in my house, no need for the possibility of temptation for skin.
I would not want to put myself in a situation where I must sell a product explicitly assisting someone else to sin, whether it be selling alcohol, giving the swimsuit issue to someone else, or even baking a cake for a gay wedding. I don't play the lottery because the odds are not in your favor, but if I were less logical about it, I still wouldn't play not because I don't win, but because I might win big. The thoughts of having too much money and handling it appropriately are overwhelming.
Many years ago one of my relatives in the mountains died, and I had to help clean the house. The dirty old man husband who had died earlier, had a stack of Playboy from the 60's. We threw them in the dumpster, but the realtor woman saw them and asked for them. I told her she could get them, but I wouldn't, and explained why. She didn't have a problem with it.
Active Christians do not act like secular people. Don't judge us by secular lifestyles.
I'm going to guess that the WV legislature didn't spend much time on this, and copy/pasted existing RFRA from other states that have already been legally tested.
1) That post is replete with inaccuracies and examples of why you don't know enough about it to be trying to discuss it. I have neither the time nor inclination to educate you.
2) You're all for religious freedom....as long as YOU deem it legitimate, but not if YOU don't deem it legitimate.
3) See my previous post about slippery slope arguments.
4) You really must not pay attention. The WV legislature has taken huge, huge strides in the last 2 sessions to save us from the economic cesspool created by 80 decades of poor leadership and a WH that set out to destroy our bread and butter. Legislatures always deal with peripheral issues. People that say things like that signal to me they have never paid enough attention to a session of any legislative body to know how things actually work. How is selling booze at Sunday brunch going to get "us off the bottom of the list on everything"? It's not, but they voted on it today and I bet you're all for that.
Actually, he was spot on. His citations of religious freedom are consistent with the First Amendment. That's what the majority of Americans want. Everyone to have the freedom to exercise their religion without discriminating against others.
This is obviously a "reaction" to the Supreme Court's ruling. Anyone that will be unbiased and honest will admit it. And it is ill founded.
You give the WH too much credit for destroying our "bread and butter". Anyone with a little bit of common sense knows that low natural gas prices did the coal industry in. And we as a state, democrats and republicans are to blame for not encouraging diversification.
Actually, no, he's not spot on. I bet I can wrap up what you (and he) actually know about First Amendment jurisprudence in a ring box. True tolerance is tolerance for everybody, not just those people that think the same way you do. It's a two way street. It's a notion the left just cannot seem to grasp. It is a reaction to the USSC because it opened to door to states prohibiting the free exercise. I noticed you didn't address that the bill tracks strict scrutiny analysis almost exactly. If you don't know what measure of scrutiny is applied to different protections afforded by the Constitution and why, you have no business in this discussion before and until you educate yourself.
And, no, not "anybody with a little bit of common sense knows that low natural gas prices did the coal industry in." People with a "little bit of common sense" would acknowledge that low natural gas prices played a role (as I do), but only the dishonest would discount that the most major factor is that both the POTUS and VPOTUS promised to bankrupt coal related industries and then hit it from both ends (extraction and use) to accomplish exactly that.
I'm done here. You boys have fun and take care.
So when I say we want religious freedom for you religious nuts to worship however you want, just as long as you don't discriminate against others, how is that NOT a two way street?
The Supreme Court is not preventing anyone, any where, from exercising their right to practice religion. No one is standing in front of the church doors.
Your post is the epitome of religious hypocrisy when it comes to the First Amendment. You religious extremists want the "freedom" to practice your religion, even when it means discriminating against others.
And Ill bet my life savings you can't name one single thing the POTUS actually did in an attempt to bankrupt coal related industries.