Discussion in 'Politics' started by srgreene, Oct 3, 2020.
Yes, but he hasn't so far extended that to his own clergy.
Yes but SRG seemed to be talking about the employment of staff and the recruiting of volunteers that could be homosexual and that would be against Christian beliefs but as I’ve said you can be a Christian and gay or are be one but not bigoted toward homosexuality and now the pope seems to be suggesting its ok to be catholic and gay.
Look I’m an atheist so religion seems a bit weird to me but it also seems obvious that there can be bigoted forms of Christianity and un-bigoted form, if you are not a bigoted person and a Christian then aren’t you likely to choose to go into an un-bigoted church while a bigoted person is likely to join a bigoted church.
In other words the Christianity doesn’t seem to be the deciding factor.
More of your incessant, boring, disingenuous twaddle. In various jurisdictions, including CA and DC, churches have been prohibited from holding services. Assigning a "nice" word like "regulate" does not mean that an action isn't effected "prohibited". Per Ref 1
In fact, only 10 states are preventing in-person religious gatherings in any form, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of recent state-level regulations. (emphasis added).
I submit that in the absence of clear evidence of a crime in the planning stages, the state has no right to stop you from driving to the other side of town (ok, some exceptions .... you have plague, or COVID, or are under court order to be confined). Merely that you are <i>suspected of planning to drive to the poor side of town so you can burn a cross ....</i> is <b>not</b> sufficient reason to curtail freedom of movement. Your logic is totalitarian, which is unsurprising, as indeed you are a Stalinist at heart.
1. Most states have religious exemptions to COVID-19 social distancing rules
I have never expressed hatred of Moslems.
I do detest Islam, just as I detest all totalitarian ideologies. Either that distinction flies over your head (not hard to do, I admit), or, once again, I will note that you are a thoroughgoing, contemptible liar.
I may be sympathetic to your perspective. But religious organizations and those working on their behalf enjoy a specific First Amendment protection that convenience stores and their employees do not. Perhaps it shouldn't be that way, but that is the point of contention in some of these law suits.
"I have never expressed hatred of moslems." ï do detest Islam." Which the fuck is it? By the way-- it's Muslims. You're certainly an insulting person, looking at your posts above.
Regulate is a word in the Constitution, The Bill of Rights, and in many Supreme Court Decisions.
That was one of her replies to me.
Trumpism is a totalitarian ideology.
Stormy---you are a patient and kind man. Me, on the other hand---
I thought most of these types had gone---not Ms greene.
Invective is the only thing she can come up with to support her irrational positions.
Oh great you are back so we can carry on with out discussions, and there was me thinkinng you had run away...so ball in your court
Thank you Brother Scratcho. I was just wondering if she is their leader? Maybe David Duck dresses up in drag and plays female on the web?
Notice Greenie hasn't said much about Kyle Rottenhouse since a judge said he could be sent to Kenosha to stand trial.
Irrelevant- and utterly meaningless- response. Just about what I would expect of you.
The Bill of Rights (a part of the Constitution, just as an FYI) and many SCOTUS decisions also use the word "the".
No only htat that- I didn't have anything to say about him before the judge issued his statement, now did I, jackass?
I do not like being lied about, and should not be lied about.
But, Simpleton, it was not merely invective: I specifically denied a false charge. Nothing irrational about that, sir.
The Act makes Virginia the first state in the South to enact comprehensive protections for the LGBTQ community against discrimination in housing, employment, public spaces, and credit applications. I'd say that's a good thing, unless you hate LGBTQs. From your description, it sounds like it singles out Christian ministries who object to LGBTQs. That is not the case, and the law does contain some religious exemptions. But some churches and religious organization think the language is too broad and the exemptions too narrow, and have already filed lawsuits to challenge the Act. I think it's clear from the First Amendment free exercise clause and Supreme Court precedent that the broad denial of religious liberty that worries you would probably not fly. As I recall, churches and ministries have been exempt from such legislation in similar cases under federal and state law. If push came to shove, the ministries might have to go to court, as they already are, or have their lawyer send a letter to protect their rights, and that's the way it is and should be in our country. The law was passed by a duly elected majority in the state and signed into law by the governor, after due deliberation. Biden hasn't raised this issue, so rather than have a nervous breakdown over it, you might wait and see if it is carried to the extreme your right wing news source, PJ, claims it will be. Obviously their intent and yours is to seize on anything your can in a last minute pre-election effort to discredit Democrats.
Speaking of grave violations of liberty, I live in a state where cunnilingus was considered a crime against nature under state sodomy laws which were interpreted to apply to heterosexual as well as homosexual acts, even by a married couple, and a disc jockey served time in prison for having unnatural sex with his wife! That's the sort of thing that went on when religious fanatics ran things, before the courts declared sodomy laws unconstitutional. From all accounts, Justice Barrett seems to be very religious, belonging to the mostly Catholic charismatic group People of Praise, which is her privilege so long as she doesn't bring it onto the bench and read it into our Constitution. We'll see.
Hmmm. Did you just call me simpleton? I'd call that invective, and it seems to be common to your posts. Invective: insulting or abusive language. Definition of INVECTIVE Nothing you've shown us so far would support pretensions to intellectual superiority, señora.
Separate names with a comma.