Us Courts Establish Government As The Official Religion Of United States.

:bomb:


I'm remembering when a bakery here in New Jersey refused service to a customer due to beliefs and our powerful opinion makers in the media were just fine with it. Even cheer-leading.

Its nasty to compare any of our decent peoples to the freak who ordered the cake with the swatztka on it.

But service was refused and the world didn't end.

If somebody refused me for beliefs, I would just move on to find another provider, why the shit storm?

Also: being refused for outward physical traits ( racism ) is a different thing than being refused for a belief system you are espousing.

Remembering the days of: The Gay Yellow Pages, back in the landline era. There should be plenty of providers willing to step up to serve this large influential community of means and influence.

Ask yourself: Are you playing offense or defense here?

Picking a fight with some backwards schmuck who refuses service; when a dozen stand behind him, who are eager to provide services.

A victorious winner, going on attack against a vanquished foe is an ugly thing.

If one were refused employment, or housing the refusal would be more serious and warrant legal action. But we are talking about baking a cake.

can we move on?

 

Where constitutional law is concerned, the courts have to operate on the basis of general principles and precedents. A cake may seem like a little thing, especially when you hypothesize that there are lots of other cake makers around the corner. But you also acknowledge that housing and employment are in a different category. How do you develop a general rule to identify which areas are trivial and which are important? Why couldn't a person just find another job or live somewhere else? Maybe because if the idea gets started in a bigoted community that its okay to deny services to people you don't approve of there won't be any place else. Sure wedding cake is not a necessity of life. Let them eat wedding pizza! But private discrimination is a slippery slope. It's difficult to draw a clear line between the important and the trivial. Should the courts consult the telephone directory to see how many gay bakers are open for business in the neighborhood, or how far it is to the next county offering marriage licenses. And are you really saying being gay is just adhering to a belief system?

 

He says it's mentioned in that centuries old book that has been changed and changed and changed, which was written in the bronze age. You know, back when the world was shaped like a pancake.

 

Natural Law ? It's reference is the Declaration of Independence > and as well , is relational to Inalienable Rights and God .
By natural law you are Free : it's that kind of grande' idea . Family would be an inalienable right . Marraige is a state-
created civil contract whose unequal and special benefits are entwined with government statutes .

I abolish the personal govt contract . It's uncivil . Like an individual's military service contract is uncivil . Both are
unfair ... the latter more deathly coersive .

Creation is an inalienable right . It is protected . Well , somewhat ... a witchy moderator could abolish this sentence .

So , pursue some happiness ... free and more freely , eh .

 

Unfortunately, those stirring words from the Declaration of Independence are mostly Fourth of July rhetoric, with no legal force. A local Okie youth tried to assert the pursuit of happiness as a defense against a charge of possession of pot, without success. Natural law isn't recognized by the courts under the U.S. Constitution.

 

Last night, I read that the Declaration Of Independence can still carry alot of weight.

In fact, the issue of constitutional supremacy is more complicated since the “Declaration of Independence,” Articles of Confederation and Northwest Ordinance also carry legal authority comparable to that of the Constitution. While it may be true that the Constitution is “supreme” among those four instruments, it’s not necessarily true that its supremacy can automatically overrule fundamental principles found in the previous three documents]https://adask.wordpress.com/2011/05/30/the-organic-laws-of-the-united-states-of-america/

 

Why , here in Iowee we had an uprising of The Natural Law Party . Hooray for sensibllity ? Eventually it was discovered ,
even after some candidates were elected , that the partiers were the transcendental Hindus from the town of Fairfield .
Anyway , their ideas sounded good nuff for farmers up until the levitation videos came out .

Natural law is recognizable by natural people .

 

:rofl:

 

There's many who already believe the Constitution is Divine , a religiously perfect Word . They
also worship The Rule of Law . Their Leader rules the world for an allotted time and assasinates
leaders on the world-stage who are defiant .

In natural law the rule is community peace .


Recently and on a dangerous night I went to the police station with a feeling of some urgency :

"How can we assist you ? What's this about ? "

" ... a condition of the peace ... " , I say .

 

Did they lock you up?

 

Yes of course.

In the matter of the davis case accommodating the gay religion is being forced upon ms davis.

She should not have this forced upon her.

 

true.
in fact precedence stare decis etc 'technically' goes easily back to the magna charta, readily notable and when dealing with cases of al od etc to the beginning of brit law.

If the law had no stability we could say the crown no longer has any holdings.

 

thats why I was hoping to have an advanced discussion rather than a bickerfest.

 

Actually, to fall under the definition of a religion 3 criteria must be met.

There must be a deity. there must be congregation, and there must be ritual.

Gays and government don't meet these criteria and do not qualify as religious institutions.

Case fucking closed, lawyer-boy.

 

NOT actually!







at least until I seen what you posted and disposed of your argument.

That great for the hilterian socialist version though.

 

Your picture quote is about religious beliefs. It says nothing about the definition of a religion.

 

Your copy and paste must be accompanied by reference information.

 

Thats because its philosophy not a dictionary sheez!

however it is in some of the better dictionaries but if you simply picked one up you would not know how to understand that by itself without understand how the words in the dictionary came to say what they do. Hence research is imperative. So do some research.

 

I don't agree with just about anything I've seen that you've posted, but I'm starting to like you.

 

no I found it out here several years ago, so I am sure anyone who is interested can find it. much of these things I post are nothing more than references or personal notes some several years old that I kept for myself. As you can see it is referenced but I have no intention to dig this up for anyone so you have to take it or leave it.