Re: LGBT intolerance

On 11/30/22 11:26 PM, Richard Clayton Wieber wrote:
> On 11/30/2022 8:16 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>> On 11/30/2022 8:07 PM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
>>> On 11/30/2022 7:54 PM, Josh Rosenbluth wrote:
>>>> On 11/30/2022 7:46 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>> Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in news:tm957g$2nr65$1@dont-
>>>>> email.me:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 11/30/2022 6:52 PM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>> Josh Rosenbluth <[email protected]> wrote in 
>>>>>>> news:tm8i6v$2jmea$1@dont-
>>>>>>> email.me:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 11/30/2022 10:54 AM, Mitchell Holman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> David Hartung <[email protected]> wrote in news:kjCdnSP3Q8dkPRr-
>>>>>>>>> [email protected]:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/30/22 11:28, Lee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/22 21:58, duke wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/2022 1:10 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/equality- 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> not-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elitism/in-colorado-leftists-look-for-excuse-to-criticize-
>>>>>>> christia
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ns
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "look for excuse to criticize Christians."Ā  That's a lie,
>>>>>>> coming
>>>>>>>>>>>>> from a  well-known lie site.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The problem for these anti-religious agitators, though, is 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we  still live in an ostensibly pluralistic society. In
>>>>> America,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you  should be able to have people who live gay lifestyles 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people who  believe that those lifestyles run contrary to 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> religious beliefs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> These are not even remotely equivalent.Ā  People who "live gay
>>>>>>>>>>>>> livestyles" do not, as a matter of course, say anything about
>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "lifestyles" of non-gays.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Tell that to those who have been attacked for simply trying to
>>>>> live
>>>>>>>>>>>> according to the teachings of their faith, people such as the
>>>>>>> owners
>>>>>>>>>>>> of Sweet Cakes by Melissa.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>       "Live according to your faith"?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>        How about "live according to THE LAW"?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The law says that the free exercise of religion may not be
>>>>> infringed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>         The law says religious discrimination
>>>>>>>>> in the marketplace is illegal.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> U.S. Code › Title 42 › Chapter 21 › Subchapter II ›
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal
>>>>>>>>> enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges,
>>>>>>>>> advantages, and accommodations of any place of public
>>>>>>>>> accommodation, as defined in this section, without
>>>>>>>>> discrimination or segregation on the ground of race,
>>>>>>>>> color, ------> religion <-------- or national origin.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000a
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Be careful. Federal law also provides for explicit protection for
>>>>>>>> religiously-motivated conduct.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000bb-1
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>        "We don't serve your kind" is not
>>>>>>> a exercise of religion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is if serving them makes you complicit in sin (in the opinion 
>>>>>> of the
>>>>>> business owner).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>    All business owners can discrminate as
>>>>> much as they want to by claiming their
>>>>> "religious opinion" justifies it?
>>>>
>>>> If there objection is sincerely based on their religious beliefs, 
>>>> they likely would not be violating federal law.
>>>
>>> That has to be wrong.  Federal law pretty clearly prohibits 
>>> discrimination on race.  If a merchant were to say, "My 'sincere' 
>>> religious belief is that blacks are the spawn of Satan, and my 
>>> beliefs dictate that I must not transact with the spawn of Satan," he 
>>> would be found to be in violation of the law and no exception would 
>>> be made for him based on his "sincere" religious beliefs.
>>>
>>> Free exercise of religion only goes so far, and it doesn't go 
>>> anywhere nearly as far as Hartung and other racist bigoted shitbags 
>>> would like it to go.
>>
>> Your hypothetical has never been litigated. But in order for the 
>> government to prevail, it has to show requiring the merchant to serve 
>> blacks is the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling 
>> government interest. I think the government has an easier case when 
>> the discrimination is based on race than sexual orientation.
> 
> That's bullshit.  Both are invidious discrimination, and the government 
> has a compelling case to prevent that in all instances.
> 

No it doesn't, it has a mandate to NOT engage in discrimination of 
persons that come into contact with Government, and that's where their 
delegated power from the 14th Amendment ends.

There is no delegated power to decide the patterns of association 
between private individuals and then to force there will on us at 
gunpoint.

Eisenhower over stepped his Authority...  his issue was with the State 
schools NOT the children entering the schools.

The way to enforce that law where government money and government 
contact at government owned schools does NOT discriminate against 
persons, was to have the FBI arrest the Governor for violating "a 
persons civil liberties" NOT to send in troops and attack the school.

Amendment XIV
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and 
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States 
and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any 
law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the 
United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, 
or property, without due process of law; *nor deny to any person within* 
*its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws* .

The State was violating the the "equal protection" clause... The State 
was the criminal. And that means the court orders be followed or the 
States officials all be arrested and held in contempt.

-- 
-Reality Matters-