- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Mississippi wins right to enforce religious exemptions law
Posted on 6/22/17 at 2:12 pm to MastrShake
Posted on 6/22/17 at 2:12 pm to MastrShake
Not to lessen the many posts made here, but the 5th circuit didn't decide the merits of the case. The ruing was based on procedure, not the law itself.
They basically threw out the case on standing, finding that the plaintiffs could not show that they had been harmed by the law, so they didn't have a right to bring the lawsuit.
They basically threw out the case on standing, finding that the plaintiffs could not show that they had been harmed by the law, so they didn't have a right to bring the lawsuit.
0
Posted on 6/22/17 at 2:13 pm to slackster
quote:Not without amendment. Those seem to be exclusive under the act.
If this stands, does it open the door for other "sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions?"
Posted on 6/22/17 at 2:13 pm to MastrShake
quote:
whose belief is this?
Christians?
because marriage predates Christianity by several thousand years. you don't own it, you're not in charge of it, its not up to you to decide who qualifies.
also, we don't make laws in this country based on religious beliefs, and if anyone can give an explanation for why "marriage is the union of one man and one woman" that doesn't come down to "because the bible says so", then Id be fascinated to hear it.
So you're ok with polygamy then. Cool.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 2:19 pm to AlxTgr
quote:
Not without amendment. Those seem to be exclusive under the act.
I was more so referring to the precedent it sets rather than the specific law itself. Protecting businesses and religious organizations from government intervention for some religious beliefs, but not others, seems like a slippery slope. My particular concern is the business aspect of the law.
Many people can get behind it now because it is Christian in nature, but if/when the protections go to more "radical" religious beliefs, there could be trouble.
This post was edited on 6/22/17 at 2:24 pm
Posted on 6/22/17 at 2:19 pm to AlxTgr
it allows religious people to discriminate against people they don't like. it...
prevents government intervention when churches or businesses act "based upon or in a manner consistent with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction."
so a bank can refuse to recognize a gay marriage and thats ok. as can a hospital. or a realtor. or anyone else who feels like it.
this demands that if you want to get married, you better be christian, or else you wont have the same rights as everyone else.
prevents government intervention when churches or businesses act "based upon or in a manner consistent with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction."
so a bank can refuse to recognize a gay marriage and thats ok. as can a hospital. or a realtor. or anyone else who feels like it.
this demands that if you want to get married, you better be christian, or else you wont have the same rights as everyone else.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 2:21 pm to MastrShake
No 
Posted on 6/22/17 at 2:21 pm to narddogg81
quote:
America has forgotten that religion is just as much a protected class as anything else
It's literally the first fricking thing the constitution protects:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Posted on 6/22/17 at 2:22 pm to MastrShake
quote:Why not? My point was that you were basing your opinion on the start date of the formal religion of Christianity, however Christianity doesn't believe that history starts 2,000 years ago with the incarnation of Jesus. If the Christian (and subsequent/concurrent Jewish belief) of when marriage started is accurate, it doesn't matter when the formal religion started.
1. no, sorry, you dont just get to retroactively claim ownership over something.
quote:We make laws for all sorts of reasons and those reasons can certainly be justified by religious beliefs.
2. as i said before...
...we don't make laws in this country based on religious beliefs, and if anyone can give an explanation for why "marriage is the union of one man and one woman" that doesn't come down to "because the bible says so", then Id be fascinated to hear it.
youre doing the opposite.
I reject your demand to get a reason that is outside of "because the bible says so" because there doesn't have to be another reason for it for those who believe that. You don't have to believe it.
That said, if you don't have a religious basis for defining marriage, what is your basis for defining it? Tradition? Convenience? Biology? Just cause? In a worldview that accepts only the natural and material (and rejects God and the supernatural), what objective basis do you have to say what marriage is and isn't? You have none, so it can literally be whatever you want it to be, which means it doesn't have any real meaning. I can "marry" a lamp if I want. My dog can "marry" its chew toy if I want to say that's the truth. If it sounds absurd, it's because it is absurd, and it is absurd because it is based on an irrational worldview. You reject a worldview that proclaims objective truth when you have no objective basis for such a rejection.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 2:23 pm to FooManChoo
So saying that people can't force their Religion on other peoples personal life is injustice?
Madness.
Madness.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 2:23 pm to slackster
quote:
Fair enough, but I think we can agree that the likelihood an engaged couple is abstaining is incredibly small.
Your point is still terrible. One is a private act the other is a public act.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 2:24 pm to BamaGradinTn
quote:i think its extremely weird but thats my opinion. someones opinion, by itself, isnt the basis for a law.
So you're ok with polygamy then. Cool.
conservatives are supposed to be the ones who want government to leave them alone and stay out of their life, arent they?
Posted on 6/22/17 at 2:24 pm to slackster
quote:That's fine, too. The application in recent years has been to organizations, but yes, it applies to individuals as well as organizations.
It isn't specific to religious organizations though. A photographer can refuse service under the law as well
Posted on 6/22/17 at 2:24 pm to UnAnon
quote:
So saying that people can't force their Religion on other peoples personal life is injustice?
Madness.
Private institutions you dolt. I'm sure you are being obtuse on purpose but you look like an idiot.
This post was edited on 6/22/17 at 2:26 pm
Posted on 6/22/17 at 2:25 pm to MastrShake
quote:
it allows religious people to discriminate against people they don't like. it...
And?
Posted on 6/22/17 at 2:26 pm to udtiger
quote:So that's your take on, say, drug laws also?
protect basic personal liberty
Posted on 6/22/17 at 2:27 pm to MastrShake
quote:
conservatives are supposed to be the ones who want government to leave them alone and stay out of their life, arent they?
You are arguing for the government to force a private church to do something against their religious doctrine.
Hey, a hypocritical liberal, shocking.
Posted on 6/22/17 at 2:28 pm to Bourre
quote:What's more fundamental than what a person chooses to put into their own body? Do you have a similar view of drug-related rights?
I am not a religious person but I understand religious liberty is a fundamental right and is a building block of this county's history, tradition/customs, national identity, and federal/state laws.
If the government can take away someone's religious rights, then no rights are safe from the government
Posted on 6/22/17 at 2:28 pm to UnAnon
quote:
So saying that people can't force their Religion on other peoples personal life is injustice?
What???
Posted on 6/22/17 at 2:28 pm to kilo
quote:
businesses act "based upon or in a manner consistent with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction."
Sounds like you can discriminate against the LGBT community behind your "private institutions and Religious freedoms"
Posted on 6/22/17 at 2:29 pm to UnAnon
quote:
Sounds like you can discriminate against the LGBT community behind your "private institutions and Religious freedoms"
Everyone discriminates. Private business should absolutely be able to do business as they see fit
Page 3 of 18
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News