Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights per draft opinion (Update: Dobbs opinion official) (2 Viewers)

[LovesMusic7360]

Not long ago Kari Lake proclaimed Arizona's abortion law was a great law and wanted it the law of the state.

Now that she has gotten her way, she is lobbying for it to be repealed.

As I have been saying since 2022, the overwhelming vast majority of women aren't going to vote for the man who proudly boasts that he got rid of Roe V. Wade. Nor are those women going to vote for a forced birther politician.

Turns out, republican belief in "pro life" was all just lies to get votes. Who is surprised? I sure am not.

How many forced birthers will do the same about face?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/ka ... r-BB1ltx3I.

Arizona Republican Senate candidate Kari Lake is actively lobbying state lawmakers to overturn a 160-year-old law she once supported that bans abortion in almost all cases, a source with knowledge of her efforts told CNN.

 

[Farb]

... or churches can give up tax exemptions and overall special treatment from the government, and go private.

And what happens if those churches can't afford the government mandated taxes? Who would seize the church property? The government. So the tax exempt status is a true example of the separation of church of state.

 

[Farb]

Sexual orientation still isn’t recognized in the federal civil rights laws on equal protection. So unless it is in the state equivalent (some do) there is no cause of action against a venue for discriminating against gays.


But more generally Churches aren’t public accommodations unless they make themselves public accommodations. For example, if the church effectively operates as a wedding venue business, then it may be making itself a public accommodation in that it can’t arbitrarily discriminate against which members of the public it is open to and which it isn’t. But if it remains a church that isn’t operating venue business but hosts weddings for members or certain guests, than it isn’t a public accommodation.

For the record, my church welcomes gay marriage nationwide.

The Supreme Court is hearing arguments for a Colorado web designer's challenge to a state law that prevents discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation to potentially refuse to work with same-sex couples. NBC's Yamiche Alcindor reports.

Yeah, some states do, this should be a fun one to watch. There is no way you can see this slippy sloping into a nationwide? I know I can.

That is great. If your church wants to provide same sex marriages in the church, good on you and the congregation. If my church did, I would find a new a new church but to each their own.

 

[Farb]

I can understand that people their base faith, morals, and values on an ancient mythology book.
I can also understand the many reasons why they do it.
But that doesn't mean I have to accept said faith, values, or morals, or accept (or even respect) the many reasons why they base faith, values, or morals on an ancient mythology book.

But those of us that find out values and morals in the old mythology books must be forced to respect and accept those that find their values and morals on something else more modern? That doesn't sound very fair does it?

 

[Farb]

I've never bought the 'I have no problem with gay civil unions but I am against gay marriages in church' argument

How do you distinguish between the two? When you meet a gay couple do you ask them where they were married?

If you don't, how can you tell if you are for or against them being together?

and I LOVE the passive aggressive “when someone talks faith, morals, values, decency and goodness it's hard for the left to understand"

Believe it or not, some people can actually say what they think and believe and it is a constant. I will try and lay it out better for you.

Since we live in a 'free' country/state anyone that voters say can get married can get married and have equal protection under the law. Those marriages are legally recognized by the state and some religions but not all religions. That is the 'state' side of the equation.

Now to the faith side. My faith tells me, and I agree with it, that marriage is between one man and one woman and is blessed by God. Those marriages are preformed by a priest and are also state recognized due to the paperwork that is submitted to the state from the church where the sacrament was held. If a priest held a wedding and didn't submit the paperwork, the state would not recognize it.

Well, I am a guy, so I don't ever see myself asking anyone where they were married because I could not care less but if I for some reason was actually curious, I would just say "so, where you guys/gals married?". Why would that be a bad thing to ask? You do know a lot of people don't get married in a physical church right?

It sounds like you kind of want me to change to beliefs where I celebrate all marriages. Why? In a free society, everyone should have the same rights (they do) but not everyone has to agree with it. That is called group think.

 

[brandon]

So you have no problem with a priest motivating his congregation to vote for the pro-life/anti-abortion candidate?

I definitely do. I don't think church leaders should be advocating for a political candidate on either side of the aisle.

 

[Taurus]

But those of us that find out values and morals in the old mythology books must be forced to respect and accept those that find their values and morals on something else more modern? That doesn't sound very fair does it?

You don't. I mean that not in the rhetorical sense, but the actual, living sense. Listen in sometime to a Baptist sermon on atheists. Respect and acceptance will be in exceedingly short supply.

But you know what we do have to do? Tolerate each other. If that minister walks into my business and wants to buy a widget, I have to sell him that widget, even if I was in his church last Sunday and I know for a fact he'd like to see me rounded up into a concentration camp.

What's slippery is if he comes to me asking for bespoke painting that depicts said concentration camp, complete with lakes of fire and a glorious behaloed Trump lashing the unbelievers.

 

[SystemShock]

And what happens if those churches can't afford the government mandated taxes?

Same thing that happens to anyone who can't afford the government mandated taxes.

So the tax exempt status is a true example of the separation of church of state.

No, it isn't. On the contrary...

 

[SystemShock]

But those of us that find out values and morals in the old mythology books must be forced to respect and accept those that find their values and morals on something else more modern?

Yes.
Do you feel it is righteous or moral to stone people to death simply because they are homosexuals?
Do you feel it is righteous or moral to stone women to death for adultery?
Do you feel that slavery is righteous or moral?
Do you believe wives to be the property of their husbands?
Do you believe women should only speak when allowed to speak?

If you answered "no" to all of those questions, you morals already come from somewhere else. If you answered "yes" to any of those questions, you are morally bankrupt.

That doesn't sound very fair does it?

It's not a case of "if you do this, why can't I do that?", but how we treat each other within the society we lived.

Thomas Aquinas was canonized a saint. He's one of the most influential church figures of all time. Besides just about plagiarizing the kalam, he also proposed that the best non-Christian was a dead non-Christian. Is that moral or righteous?
The usual response I get: "that how it was then; how people of that time thought".... exactly.

 

[Farb]

Same thing that happens to anyone who can't afford the government mandated taxes.

No, it isn't. On the contrary...

And that is the cleanest way to wipe away religion from western society. That is the goal, don't you think?

Yes it is.

 

[Farb]

You don't. I mean that not in the rhetorical sense, but the actual, living sense. Listen in sometime to a Baptist sermon on atheists. Respect and acceptance will be in exceedingly short supply.

But you know what we do have to do? Tolerate each other. If that minister walks into my business and wants to buy a widget, I have to sell him that widget, even if I was in his church last Sunday and I know for a fact he'd like to see me rounded up into a concentration camp.

What's slippery is if he comes to me asking for bespoke painting that depicts said concentration camp, complete with lakes of fire and a glorious behaloed Trump lashing the unbelievers.

Why do you 'have' to sell him anything? Who is compelling you and with what?

 

[Farb]

Yes.
Do you feel it is righteous or moral to stone people to death simply because they are homosexuals?
Do you feel it is righteous or moral to stone women to death for adultery?
Do you feel that slavery is righteous or moral?
Do you believe wives to be the property of their husbands?
Do you believe women should only speak when allowed to speak?

If you answered "no" to all of those questions, you morals already come from somewhere else. If you answered "yes" to any of those questions, you are morally bankrupt.



It's not a case of "if you do this, why can't I do that?", but how we treat each other within the society we lived.

Thomas Aquinas was canonized a saint. He's one of the most influential church figures of all time. Besides just about plagiarizing the kalam, he also proposed that the best non-Christian was a dead non-Christian. Is that moral or righteous?
The usual response I get: "that how it was then; how people of that time thought".... exactly.

Just so I am clear, Jesus was all about stoning people for sin? And If I believe that than I am morally bankrupt but if I don't believe that then I don't follow the values and morals of my religion? I don't think that is very rational.

So treating each other with respect is, at least in your mind, should be forcibly compelled by the state? "beating will continue until your morality improves"

I don't really do presentism and to be honest, I was thinking you would be a little better than that too. St. Thomas was also living in the end time of the 1st crusade, just to shed a little light on the era he was living in.

 

[Farb]

For the record, I'm in favor of requiring ID's. Just pointing out that when they are required, people will complain voters are using fake IDs to vote.

Yes, they will. I will admit that. No matter what guardrails are enforced there will be those that question them and those that try and out maneuver them. But, minus thumb prints, blood draws or retnal scans, it might be the best and least invasive option we have.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

So you have no problem with a priest motivating his congregation to vote for the pro-life/anti-abortion candidate?

I would love to see some banned from voting. See, I can be honest. How about you? Do you think religious people should be banned from voting?

A) I have no right to tell a priest what to, or what not to, say to his flock unless he's advocating for some kind of criminal activity. Maybe I should add, I don't think I do anyway.

B) I think religious people have, and SHOULD have, the same voting rights as anyone else.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

So you have no problem with a priest motivating his congregation to vote for the pro-life/anti-abortion candidate?

I would love to see some banned from voting. See, I can be honest. How about you? Do you think religious people should be banned from voting?

Who do you think should be banned from voting and why?

 

[superchuck500]

The Supreme Court is hearing arguments for a Colorado web designer's challenge to a state law that prevents discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation to potentially refuse to work with same-sex couples. NBC's Yamiche Alcindor reports.

Yeah, some states do, this should be a fun one to watch. There is no way you can see this slippy sloping into a nationwide? I know I can.

That is great. If your church wants to provide same sex marriages in the church, good on you and the congregation. If my church did, I would find a new a new church but to each their own.

So that would be the deal breaker? You liked everything about your church but then that sends you packing? Dear God man - why do you care so much about something that has nothing to do with you?

And no, I don’t think it’s a slippery slope. Either the relevant law provides for public accommodation protection for sexual orientation or it doesn’t. This isn’t a case where the gay supporters are asking for an expansion of coverage beyond what the law says. This is a case where a public business wants to avoid application of the law as written. I don’t see how it’s possible for this case’s ruling to expand gay rights in the marketplace.

 

[MT15]

It’s all performative victimhood.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

So that would be the deal breaker? You liked everything about your church but then that sends you packing? Dear God man - why do you care so much about something that has nothing to do with you?

And no, I don’t think it’s a slippery slope. Either the relevant law provides for public accommodation protection for sexual orientation or it doesn’t. This isn’t a case where the gay supporters are asking for an expansion of coverage beyond what the law says. This is a case where a public business wants to avoid application of the law as written. I don’t see how it’s possible for this case’s ruling to expand gay rights in the marketplace.

That's because you are looking at it from a rational, objective point of view.

 

[Taurus]

Why do you 'have' to sell him anything? Who is compelling you and with what?

Teh gubmint, with force. Religion is a protected class.