SCOTUS Rulings

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Aaaaaand…. you just went personal. This forum needs to be regulated, I mean, where's the admin?

Have I said anything that you haven't said yourself? You are the one who posted that information on the forums to begin with, so I don't see how you're interpreting my reposting your own words as some kind of personal attack.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I pray you do know, more people down through history have been married without a statist marriage license than with one. So, I guess me and my "non-wife" are in good company.

Again, I was going by your own words that you weren't married. Should I be blamed for repeating your own comments back to you?

Originally Posted by Aquila

Of course, statists like you typically think the state must legislate every human decision known to man...unless it gives you the power to discriminate.

I'm sorry, but are you serious? I absolutely DON'T want any more government interference than necessary. How in the world did you possibly come to the conclusion that I want more government regulations? Have you even read any of my posts?

Originally Posted by Aquila

And I've provided plenty of links, references, etc. pointing to this growing trend in conservatism. Of course, you don't believe God alone unites a man and woman. You believe He needs Caesar to unite a man and woman. That's what these conservatives are standing against.

Now we're getting way off-topic. Also, you're wrong.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Ummmm… go back and read my responses. I shared my concerns with what you posted. I only asked, where does it end?

No, you made an over-the-top response that was not even remotely similar to the scenario I presented.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Aaaaannnnd…. you still refusing to answer

Because your scenario was so completely out in left field compared to what I was talking about, that it's not even worth responding to. There is no comparison between my scenario and yours. None. It's like comparing an apple to a Volvo.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I expected you to laugh at my question about a medic refusing to treat a gay person, and then answer the question. Not go personal.

What question? Whether someone should be allowed to commit homicide? That's not a question, that's a comedy routine (and a poorly done one, at that, which is why I didn't laugh).

Originally Posted by Aquila

I think if I ever own a business... no Apostolics will be served because you guys have become utterly offensive to my sensibilities.

Your prerogative. Did you expect me to be upset by that?

Originally Posted by Aquila

You guys have turned the entire movement into a den of vipers where friendly conversation of differing views cannot be had.

Differing views? You literally jumped from artistic expression to MURDER! That's rational and reasonable in your mind?

Originally Posted by Aquila

I took a few days away from this place and talked with rational people. Not all agreed with me, but they were far friendlier than so many here.

I think you and I have very different definitions of rational. Comparing baking a cake to murder is not rational by any sane definition.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I think I'll leave for another few days. No biggie. I'm weening myself off this place. No decent conversation can be had anyway.

I've long since decided that for myself, but then I removed the block on a certain user. I believe that was my fatal mistake.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Jito463

Have I said anything that you haven't said yourself? You are the one who posted that information on the forums to begin with, so I don't see how you're interpreting my reposting your own words as some kind of personal attack.

It is the manner in which it is brought up. It is also the distortion of the point.

Again, I was going by your own words that you weren't married. Should I be blamed for repeating your own comments back to you?

Our union was blessed by our elders and we also have all powers of attorney, wills, and property agreements in place to secure most rights that couples in civil marriages enjoy. We're not just "shacking up". We followed the path of Quakers who have married without state involvement. So, the little word "civil" is of much value here. No, we are not in a "civil" marriage. We are in privately established marriage established in old-time Quaker fashion.

I'm sorry, but are you serious? I absolutely DON'T want any more government interference than necessary. How in the world did you possibly come to the conclusion that I want more government regulations? Have you even read any of my posts?

Ah, then we are in agreement at least that far.

Now we're getting way off-topic. Also, you're wrong.

We'll, if you don't believe that marriage should be under the control of Caesar, as I do, why say my wife is my "non-wife"? We followed the path of Quakers and other libertarian types who have stablished marital unions outside of state control.

No, you made an over-the-top response that was not even remotely similar to the scenario I presented.

Because your scenario was so completely out in left field compared to what I was talking about, that it's not even worth responding to. There is no comparison between my scenario and yours. None. It's like comparing an apple to a Volvo.

It was an over the top response. But it wasn't intended as a personal insult. It was simply an extreme to consider and work back from. Surely, no one would agree that a paramedic should deny treatment to anyone. I was starting with the extreme, and hoping you'd be willing to walk us back to where you believe the line would be drawn. That's all.

Your prerogative. Did you expect me to be upset by that?

No, just curious of your response. I mean, if we can all just discriminate based on religion, why not, right? lol

Differing views? You literally jumped from artistic expression to MURDER! That's rational and reasonable in your mind?

Again...

It was an over the top response. But it wasn't intended as a personal insult. It was simply an extreme to consider and work back from. Surely, no one would agree that a paramedic should deny treatment to anyone. I was starting with the extreme, and hoping you'd be willing to walk us back to where you believe the line would be drawn. That's all.

I think you and I have very different definitions of rational. Comparing baking a cake to murder is not rational by any sane definition.

We agree that it would be irrational. But can you be willing to walk us backwards from that extreme and show us where the line is to be drawn? Where does the right to discriminate end? I posted this picture a few posts ago. At what point should one be denied the right to deprive another of goods and/or services based on religious convictions?

I've long since decided that for myself, but then I removed the block on a certain user. I believe that was my fatal mistake.

I would like to say thank you for a more thoughtful response to me. You weren't overtly nasty or mocking. I can respect that, even if we disagree on some things. I hope I helped clarify some things and my intentions with this post.

Can you elaborate on at what point should one be denied the right to deprive another of goods and/or services based on religious convictions?

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Our union was blessed by our elders and we also have all powers of attorney, wills, and property agreements in place to secure most rights that couples in civil marriages enjoy. We're not just "shacking up". We followed the path of Quakers who have married without state involvement. So, the little word "civil" is of much value here. No, we are not in a "civil" marriage. We are in privately established marriage established in old-time Quaker fashion.

I didn't see that post, all I knew was that you said you weren't married. I couldn't care less whether your marriage is by certificate from the state or not, all I understood was that you weren't married to the woman you were living with. If I misunderstood, then I apologize.

Originally Posted by Aquila

It was an over the top response. But it wasn't intended as a personal insult.

I never interpreted it as such, but it was completely outlandish.

Originally Posted by Aquila

It was simply an extreme to consider and work back from. Surely, no one would agree that a paramedic should deny treatment to anyone. I was starting with the extreme, and hoping you'd be willing to walk us back to where you believe the line would be drawn. That's all.

Originally Posted by Aquila

We agree that it would be irrational. But can you be willing to walk us backwards from that extreme and show us where the line is to be drawn? Where does the right to discriminate end? I posted this picture a few posts ago. At what point should one be denied the right to deprive another of goods and/or services based on religious convictions?

You want to know where I draw the line? Freedom. I always err on the side of freedom. That's my guiding philosophy in these matters. Does the bakeries refusal to make a cake for them constitute a breach of freedom? No, because they can always go somewhere else for the cake. Does their demands that the bakery make a cake for them violate the bakeries freedom? Yes, because it forces them to violate their religious principles.

So the answer to your question is - and will continue to be - freedom.

Originally Posted by Aquila

I would like to say thank you for a more thoughtful response to me. You weren't overtly nasty or mocking. I can respect that, even if we disagree on some things. I hope I helped clarify some things and my intentions with this post.

And it was never my intent to be nasty or mocking. The example I brought up before was in response to your mention of extreme comments. I simply delved back into my memory and grabbed the most extreme thing from you that I could recall.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Can you elaborate on at what point should one be denied the right to deprive another of goods and/or services based on religious convictions?

Whenever one persons desires intrudes on another persons freedoms, that's where I draw the line. It's the same with my attitude on gun ownership. Another persons fears does not mean I should be forced to give up my right to keep and bear arms.

Freedom| <-line

[Wilsonwas]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The primary directive for governance is for rulers to serve in the fear of the Lord. "Anarcho capitalism" is a form of idolatry, as it seeks to dethrone God from His rightful place as Supreme Magistrate over all others. King of kings and Lord of lords, and all that.

The primary directive for governance is for rulers to serve in the fear of the Lord. - In a country growning more dem/socialist with each generation, that allows a great amount of immigration from countries which are not primarily Christian, it is entirely possible ..... et London,.....to have a person that beleives in Sharia law to be in charge, fearing his lord. And if you ask for laws that interfere in religion, or which support any given one over others, you give power to something that will I assure you come back to bite you with it.
You and many right wing cons love power and force equally with the leftest that want laws that say bakers myst make a cake because discrimination- you are just at opposite spectrums as to what to do with it.

As to the rest: "Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy and school of anarchist thought that advocates the elimination of centralized state dictum in favor of self-ownership, private property and free markets. Wikipedia" ...I fail to see idols there....
God is not dethroned because I will ask for no human master. He only gave the Jews a king cause they fussed till he did.

[Apostolic1ness]

Originally Posted by Wilsonwas

The primary directive for governance is for rulers to serve in the fear of the Lord. - In a country growning more dem/socialist with each generation, that allows a great amount of immigration from countries which are not primarily Christian, it is entirely possible ..... et London,.....to have a person that beleives in Sharia law to be in charge, fearing his lord. And if you ask for laws that interfere in religion, or which support any given one over others, you give power to something that will I assure you come back to bite you with it.
You and many right wing cons love power and force equally with the leftest that want laws that say bakers myst make a cake because discrimination- you are just at opposite spectrums as to what to do with it.

As to the rest: "Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy and school of anarchist thought that advocates the elimination of centralized state dictum in favor of self-ownership, private property and free markets. Wikipedia" ...I fail to see idols there....
God is not dethroned because I will ask for no human master. He only gave the Jews a king cause they fussed till he did.

1tim 2:2, 1peter2:13, 17

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Wilsonwas

The primary directive for governance is for rulers to serve in the fear of the Lord. - In a country growning more dem/socialist with each generation, that allows a great amount of immigration from countries which are not primarily Christian, it is entirely possible ..... et London,.....to have a person that beleives in Sharia law to be in charge, fearing his lord. And if you ask for laws that interfere in religion, or which support any given one over others, you give power to something that will I assure you come back to bite you with it.
You and many right wing cons love power and force equally with the leftest that want laws that say bakers myst make a cake because discrimination- you are just at opposite spectrums as to what to do with it.

As to the rest: "Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy and school of anarchist thought that advocates the elimination of centralized state dictum in favor of self-ownership, private property and free markets. Wikipedia" ...I fail to see idols there....
God is not dethroned because I will ask for no human master. He only gave the Jews a king cause they fussed till he did.

When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me; Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.
(Deuteronomy 17:14-15)

Only native Christians are eligible to serve as governing magistrates in a society founded by Christians. It is not lawful for either foreignors or non Christians to serve as ruling magistrates. And, this is actually how it used to be in the colonies, and even among many of the states after Independence.

Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure. Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel. Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him.
(Psalms 2:1-12)

It is the heathen who seek political independence from God and Christ. Such a goal is a "vain imagination". All rulers are to embrace Christ and serve God, otherwise they are under His judicial wrath. All magistrates are to follow the law of God (they are to "be instructed" by God), they are not at liberty to follow any heathen philosophy like "liberal democracy", "humanism", "socialism", or "anarcho capitalism". They are to follow the Bible.

Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ; And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:
(Ephesians 3:8-11)

The purpose of apostolic preaching is to inform the ruling magistrates of the manifold wisdom of God. The church's mission is to proclaim the good news of Christ's KINGDOM to all and sundry, including the civil powers that be.

Note: "Powers and principalities" are political magistrates (Titus 3:1)

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
(Romans 13:1-6)

The civil power is ordained by God, specifically for the purpose of punishing evil and protecting and promoting good (good and evil are defined by God in His Word). That is the purpose of civil government and especially the enforcement power of the state.

You hypothetise that Muslims might take over the state power. Well, guess what? Antichrist humanists have already done that (before you were even born), and the lawlessness and insanity we see rampant in society today is the direct result of their religion being enforced as "public policy". Regardless of what people wish to fantasise about, this nation was originally established as thirteen colonies of Christian societies. In spite of the usurpation by the Freemasons with their "federalist constitution" (as warned about by Patrick Henry and others of the time), the nation itself remained and remains a Christian society. Especially in light of the fact that ALL nations are commanded to repent and serve God to begin with. Therefore, any government not in line with God's Word is rebellion and sedition, plain and simple.

If we live in a society in rebellion and sedition against God, it is the duty of the church to inform that society of it's sedition and rebellion, and God's demands of repentance. This is called "preaching the Gospel". It is the message to everyone (including politicians and magistrates) that there is ONE LORD, the Lord Jesus Christ. Every single one of our nation's problems can be traced right back to a violation of the Word of God. In other words, our nation's problem is a SIN problem, and repentance is the answer.

"Jesus is the answer to our national problems!" Indeed, but what does that actually mean? It doesn't mean everyone join a megachurch, vote GOP, and send their money to some money grubbing fake televangelist. It means the nation must stop violating God's law, and start acknowledging the Lordship of Jesus Christ not only in word but in deed. And for that to happen, Christians have to quit telling everyone that satan and his minions "have the right" to control everything, or that "Christians ought to just withdraw and worry about going to heaven when they die." They too need to repent, and start proclaiming the actual Bible Gospel of the KINGDOM OF GOD.

For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.
(Isaiah 33:22)

And there you have all three branches of government: judicial, legislative, and executive. For God's people, those roles are superintended by God Himself, not man, who are only His appointed agents responsible for carrying out His orders.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

You hypothetise that Muslims might take over the state power. Well, guess what? Antichrist humanists have already done that (before you were even born), and the lawlessness and insanity we see rampant in society today is the direct result of their religion being enforced as "public policy".

And how did this happen? Quite simply, Christians abandoned the field and surrendered to the humanists because they were infected with several varieties of heretical teachings, such as dispensationalism, pre trib rapturism, Russelism and other forms of imminent Adventism, and Pietism. All these teachings turned Christianity into an inward looking only religious philosophy, turning Christians into neurotic introverts concerned exclusively about "getting to heaven" (along with all the needed personal development aka "holiness", which got subverted from being actual separation to God - and His Word - and transformed into a religious sectarianism consisting primarily in a series of repeated emotional catharses signified by unique dress codes). And on the flip side, the heretical "modernism" that crept into Christendom which subtly transformed the Gospel and Christianity into political Marxism (marketed as "social justice" and "liberal theology") turned professing Christians into practicing Communists and useful idiots.

As Christendom abandoned any semblance of the actual LORDSHIP of Christ "over all", it has became a cult of personal self improvement either through permanent seeking of ecstasies, or through "dharma" (good works, the social gospel, progressivism, liberal Christianity, etc).

Asoka would be proud.

[Wilsonwas]

And when do you assume I was born, the socialists were already in charge prior to 1964?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Jito463

I didn't see that post, all I knew was that you said you weren't married. I couldn't care less whether your marriage is by certificate from the state or not, all I understood was that you weren't married to the woman you were living with. If I misunderstood, then I apologize.



I never interpreted it as such, but it was completely outlandish.





You want to know where I draw the line? Freedom. I always err on the side of freedom. That's my guiding philosophy in these matters. Does the bakeries refusal to make a cake for them constitute a breach of freedom? No, because they can always go somewhere else for the cake. Does their demands that the bakery make a cake for them violate the bakeries freedom? Yes, because it forces them to violate their religious principles.

So the answer to your question is - and will continue to be - freedom.

And it was never my intent to be nasty or mocking. The example I brought up before was in response to your mention of extreme comments. I simply delved back into my memory and grabbed the most extreme thing from you that I could recall.



Whenever one persons desires intrudes on another persons freedoms, that's where I draw the line. It's the same with my attitude on gun ownership. Another persons fears does not mean I should be forced to give up my right to keep and bear arms.

Freedom| <-line

I appreciate you and the spirit of your post. You make some important and thought provoking points.

I see it a little differently. If one is incorporated as a business, there are civil statutes that come into play. Statutes that legally prohibit discrimination on the grounds of religion, race, age, gender, and sexual orientation. I understand if a baker has convictions on a matter. But they are "on the clock", so to speak. They represent the business, not themselves at that time. A Christian cashier might no doubt find themselves selling cigarettes, condoms, Playboy, lotto tickets, even medications, etc. that violate Christian convictions. It's part of the job. They can seek a different job if it is too much for them to serve the entire community. The baker is a baker. Not a preacher, priest, or pastor. The bakery isn't incorporated as a non-profit religious organization like a church or synagogue. If selling gays a wedding cake is so strongly against their convictions, that is fine. But they can't discriminate. Meaning, they must treat all wedding cake orders the same. This means, they should cease selling wedding cakes entirely, so as to not discriminate. They can't have a shelf of wedding cakes with a small sign that reads, "No gays, Irish, cults, mixed couples, or divorcees may purchase." It's a business open to the general public. If they can't abide by laws and statutes that protect from discrimination, they can cease selling wedding cakes altogether, or, maybe a business open to the general public isn't right for them.

Everyone has rights. One is the right to religious conviction, another is a right not to be discriminated against based on religion, race, age, gender, and sexual orientation. A Christian baker has the right not to violate their convictions, but they do not have the right to discriminate in regards to how those convictions are practiced when functioning as a business open to the public. If one can't sell a wedding cake to gays, mixed couples, divorcees, or other faiths, they shouldn't sell wedding cakes at all, thereby treating all equally in the matter.

They can, and should, keep their convictions. However, they must apply those conviction evenly towards all, without discrimination.

If pork or porn is against my religion, it's not going to be on my shelves. If someone wants to order a swine cake praising bacon and that offends me, I'll sell no specialty cakes. I'll have a book of predetermined designes that we do sell.

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Aquila

If one can't sell a wedding cake to gays, mixed couples, divorcees, or other faiths, they shouldn't sell wedding cakes at all, thereby treating all equally in the matter.

They can, and should, keep their convictions. However, they must apply those conviction evenly towards all, without discrimination.

You don't seem to be grasping my point, so let me try this from another angle.

Going back to the artistic expression argument, should a painter (which by definition makes unique works) be forced to paint something against their beliefs, just because they make themselves available to the public? Should they be forced to paint pictures of naked people, if that violates their beliefs?

What if it was a Muslim painter, and someone asked him/her to paint a picture of Mohammed (which they view as forbidden in their beliefs)? Would they be forced to do so because they have a business, or would their beliefs allow them to decline the work?

A wedding cake is no different, because it requires not just baking talents, but also artistic talents for the design elements. They didn't come in to buy a ready-made cake (which I'm sure the bakery would have sold to them), they wanted one designed specifically for their "wedding". They wanted to force the baker to use his artistic talents in violation of his beliefs.

Now do you get my point?