It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: beezzer
That's why we have laws.
To restrict freedom.
Because freedom might not be nice.
They are not forced to practice their business. They have a choice, comply with the law, close their business, or suffer the consequences. To recap what you have chosen to ignore...
In essence you are saying that in order to believe what you want that the government has to first give you permission.
originally posted by: Meee32
FORCE is never okay!... Okay? And it doesn't matter one jot WHO is doing the forcing either...
originally posted by: mOjOm
originally posted by: Meee32
FORCE is never okay!... Okay? And it doesn't matter one jot WHO is doing the forcing either...
Really??? Never???
So we shouldn't Force Murderers to stop killing people by sending them to jail??? We shouldn't force People to follow the law??? We should NEVER force someone to take responsibility for the actions they choose to take???? Never???
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Bone75
So ... let me make sure I'm getting this, you're saying now that when a minister marries two folks, he (or she) is responsible for verifying, certifying and approving the method of "marriage consummation"?
That's a new one ... does the minister have to be in the, er, 'bridal chamber' in person, or will photos suffice? How about a live video feed, would that do? Does he hold up score cards like at the Olympics?
source
Many states explicitly require by law consummation of marriage for the vows to be considered valid. They include Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Ohio, South Carolina, Vermont and Wisconsin.
Sodomite-schmodomite ... using archaic terminology doesn't mean squat. I could just as easily (and actually more accurately) refer to Christians as psychotics who believe that invisible beings that only they can hear are real.
originally posted by: beezzer
Linky
For years, those in favor of same-sex marriage have argued that all Americans should be free to live as they choose. And yet in countless cases, the government has coerced those who simply wish to be free to live in accordance with their belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.
Ministers face a 180-day jail term and $1,000 fine for each day they decline to celebrate the same-sex wedding.
Just this weekend, a case has arisen in Idaho, where city officials have told ordained ministers they have to celebrate same-sex weddings or face fines and jail time.
I am normally the first person to slam the church for controlling tactics to subvert evolution of equal rights for all . But in this case, this is the wrong way to go about it. Equality only works when people are treated equally. No one is more important than another. And, while I've always stated that if you're too ignorant to understand science, you should try organized religion, the church should be allowed to practice freedom of speech & religion. Meaning, they don't have to agree & as long as they aren't advocating violence against individuals, they are well within their rights.
This declaration is ridiculous and the only thing that will come from it is liability, imo. But, the government will continually try to challenge our rights so we can't be surprised by their attempts to do so. We must choose solidarity to stem the flow of tyranny.
originally posted by: beezzer
I've penned much on how freedom is a double-edged sword.
And written extensively that when you inhibit/restrict some freedoms, you end up denying freedoms that many enjoy.
When we start using the law to beat each other over the head and use said law to deny behaviour that might not be acceptable to some, then you are opening yourself up to future laws that might turn around and bite you in the metaphysical rear.
Many here would enjoy any law that would beat Christians about the head and shoulders.
But what they don't realize is that future laws might get them as well.
So for now, I suppose the best course of action is to keep the mouth shut, keep religion behind closed doors.
At least until that is taken away as well.
originally posted by: beezzer
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: beezzer
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: beezzer
And here I thought you were gone ...
No, no one has said that there is no religious freedom ... Windword, is that what you said?
He said freedoms were limited.
yes. thats why we have LAWS. freedoms are limited because freedom is not synonymous with "doing the right thing". freedom does not guarantee respect or courtesy.
That's why we have laws.
To restrict freedom.
Because freedom might not be nice.
originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: sheepslayer247
Slippery slope.
It's a very slippery slope.
If we start accepting this, then it's only a small step to the state mandating what goes on inside of religious institutions.
www.powerlineblog.com...
Williamson observes: “It is a perversion of the English language that our so-called liberals are the least liberal faction in our polity. American liberalism is the creed that you are entitled to think as you like and entitled to do as you are commanded.”
But liberals want to control our thoughts too. They seek to stigmatize heterodox thought as bigoted or criminal or otherwise beyond the pale. They seek to destroy those with whom they disagree.
Jonah Goldberg wrote the book on Liberal Fascism. “It is my argument,” he writes, “that American liberalism is a totalitarian political religion.” In a related column, Jonah explains:
According to contemporary liberalism, the government is the control room of society, where problems get solved, where institutions get their marching orders, where the oceans are commanded to stop rising. Each institution must subscribe to the progressive vision: All oars must pull as one. We are all in it together. We can do it all, if we all work together. Yes, we can.
I used to have a Catholic goods store near my house that was made for and by the church for a profit. They refused to sell bibles and rosaries to metal heads for fear that they would use them for desecration purposes in black masses. Thats a legally protected religious business refusing service based on musical genre and clothing...yet still perfectly legal.
originally posted by: Meee32
Erm, killing someone is using force... So they then are against the no force policy... No? And then you can stop them killing other people... But hey guess what... Gov, they tend to kill a lot of people, but I bet you are in support of that one... Cos well, it's gov and all... XD
EDIT: How on earth can you even compare killing someone to someone refusing a service... I mean 0.o
originally posted by: mOjOm
originally posted by: beezzer
I've penned much on how freedom is a double-edged sword.
And written extensively that when you inhibit/restrict some freedoms, you end up denying freedoms that many enjoy.
You mean like how some enjoy the freedom to tell a certain group of society that they are not equal to others. How they enjoy telling these other people how Unnatural they are and what an Abomination they are and how they should be Put to death for their Sins against God, Nature and Humanity.
Like I said, I don't like it any more than you but the fact is, People Enjoy Hurting Other People. It's too bad some people find that to be enjoyable because it's a problem.
When we start using the law to beat each other over the head and use said law to deny behaviour that might not be acceptable to some, then you are opening yourself up to future laws that might turn around and bite you in the metaphysical rear.
Many here would enjoy any law that would beat Christians about the head and shoulders.
That may be so. But nobody is trying to pass any such laws. What I see is Christians trying to pass laws making them special. Special so they can discriminate but not be discriminated against. Special so they don't have to follow the law while everyone else does. Special so that their belief grants them favor while others beliefs grant them nothing.
Everyone else seems to be able to find some common ground in most cases. All but the Radical Evangelical Fundamentalists. For example, everyone can agree to say "Happy Holidays" which covers Christmas, Hanuka, Quanza, etc. But not the Fundimentalists. They insist it has to be Christmas. Their Holiday only. Why is that???
But what they don't realize is that future laws might get them as well.
So for now, I suppose the best course of action is to keep the mouth shut, keep religion behind closed doors.
At least until that is taken away as well.
Are you serious??? A Million Christian churches. Christian Radio, TV, Magazines, etc. Dominance of Religion for thousands of years in every society on the planet and you really want me to believe Poor old helpless Religion is being Silenced or Kept Hidden??? Please. Exactly who is trying to keep who in the closet???
That conservatives are susceptible to becoming fascist is relatively obvious. Impressed by what they see as the moral faults in human nature, conservatives strive to control it. Since moral values cannot be determined by majority vote, in extreme cases conservatives can feel justified in the moral minority over-ruling the straying majority.
That liberals are also susceptible to fascism is less obvious only because the moral faults on which liberals primarily fasten are selfishness and intolerance. And the virtue that counters them is openness, which seems the opposite of fascism. However, when selfishness and intolerance are majority failings, liberals can feel every bit as strongly as conservatives that they are a moral minority justified in over-ruling the majority.
Liberals are therefore fascist in legalizing same-sex marriage over the wishes of the majority of Californians. Liberals justify over-ruling the majority in this case because “it’s right.” The implication is that they don't just believe it’s right (which would undermine their unconditional demands) but that they know it's right (which makes opposition to their view intolerable).
However, in a democracy the majority rules — not because the majority is right but because true democrats know that, when people disagree, (1) government cannot reliably determine who is right and who is wrong; and (2) for that very reason, government cannot countenance rule by a minority merely because they're convinced they know what's right. Power is therefore given to majority vote by default. That’s why democracy is the worst of all possible political systems, except for the alternatives.
conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com...
Wilson created the first official propaganda department in the US. A week after Congress declared war on Germany, Wilson created a government apparatus whose sole purpose was to lie to the American people, the first modern ministry for propaganda in the West. It was called the Committee on Public Information and was led by journalist George Creel.
Edward Bernays, an adviser to Wilson and participant in CPI operations, characterized the mission of CPI as the “engineering of consent” and “the conscious manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses.”
Wilson harshly suppressed dissent and resistance among citizens and the press
At Wilson’s urging, a Sedition Act (not unlike the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 ) forbade Americans from criticizing their own government in a time of war. Citizens could not “utter, print, write or publish any disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language” about the government or the military. The Postmaster General was given the authority to revoke the mailing privileges of those who disobeyed. About 75 periodicals were were shut down by the government in this way and many others were given warnings.
In the fashion of a police state, the Department of Justice arrested tens of thousands of individuals without just cause. One was not safe even within the walls of one’s own home to criticize the Wilson administration. A letter to federal attorneys and marshals said that citizens had nothing to fear as long as they “Obey the law; keep your mouth shut.”
conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com...
originally posted by: CranialSponge
a reply to: tadaman
I used to have a Catholic goods store near my house that was made for and by the church for a profit. They refused to sell bibles and rosaries to metal heads for fear that they would use them for desecration purposes in black masses. Thats a legally protected religious business refusing service based on musical genre and clothing...yet still perfectly legal.
You just said it yourself.
This business was set up and run by a church... a legally recognized religious organization.
How they registered that business, is how they were able to conduct that business.