Do you hope for Trump or Clinton to win?

[Lurikeen]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The only differences between race and sexuality that matter in this discussion are those outlined in the Civil Rights Act. Here they are: None. Both are protected classes.

If it makes you feel any better I have utter contempt for Islamic culture and the liberal outlook on Islam. You see, unlike you, my views aren't pigeonholed into a stark left/right dichotomy.

So Christians aren't a protected class, Lune? There's nothing in the US Constitution about freedom of religion?

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Lurikeen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

So Christians aren't a protected class, Lune? There's nothing in the US Constitution about freedom of religion?

Religion is indeed a protected class. An atheist baker has to bake a cake for some Catholic's confirmation or whatever.

Guess what, your right to practice your religion does not extend to commercial practices, nor does it supersede state or federal law. Amish are not legally allowed to sell their women as property, even though it's religious doctrine.

If you want to give bakers the right to deny service based on religious law, you'd also have to give Mormons the right to polygamy, Muslims the right to stone adulterers, Jehovah's Witnesses the right to deny blood transfusions to minors who are too young to have any say. There is a good reason why secular law trumps religious law in the United States.

[Pokesan]

You're oppressing me by not allowing me to persecute others

[Lurikeen]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Religion is indeed a protected class. An atheist baker has to bake a cake for some Catholic's confirmation or whatever.

Guess what, your right to practice your religion does not extend to commercial practices, nor does it supersede state or federal law. Amish are not legally allowed to sell their women as property, even though it's religious doctrine.

If you want to give bakers the right to deny service based on religious law, you'd also have to give Mormons the right to polygamy, Muslims the right to stone adulterers, Jehovah's Witnesses the right to deny blood transfusions to minors who are too young to have any say. There is a good reason why secular law trumps religious law in the United States.

Now you've gone "retarded" my friend. If a religion is a protected class then the law protects them from the minority or majority who would impinge upon their practices. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't say that Christianity is protected, but Christians must also violate their consciences.

Your last paragraph is not an argument against my position Indeed, it is an argument against the immoral position you hold.

BTW, Secular law doesn't "trump" divine law. Never has and never will (this is the foundation of the US Constitution). The problem is when secular governments uphold themselves above natural law which is instituted by God.

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Lurikeen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Now you've gone "retarded" my friend. If a religion is a protected class then the law protects them from the minority or majority who would impinge upon their practices. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't say that Christianity is protected, but Christians must also violate their consciences.

Your last paragraph is not an argument against my position Indeed, it is an argument against the immoral position you hold.

BTW, Secular law doesn't "trump" divine law. Never has and never will. The problem is when secular governments uphold themselves above natural law which is instituted by God.

You see, that's where the United States Constitution and SCOTUS disagrees with you. Freedom of religion is established under an entirely different doctrine than the notion of 'protected classes' in the Civil Rights Act.

The Supreme Court developed this position in Reynolds v. United States (1879), saying "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices". You may not like it, but that is the established legal precedent in this country. The 1st amendment does not protect the right of Satanists to practice human sacrifice, nor does it protect any other degree of unlawful religious behavior.

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Nobody is forcing them to be bakers. If being a baker means you just might have to serve a cake to some homos, and that absolutely incenses you, maybe you need to find a job where you don't serve the general public.

I know how hard it was just to get people like you to serve black people, but hang in there-- you can stick it out a little longer and serve some homos too, hate it as you may.

Me? hehehe... You should listen to this young gentleman for 4min, Lune, I even gave his vid thumbs up mad props. A guy like that nowadays is quite literally risking his very life standing up like that in this country, against the left. But this is one that wont be forgotten, a true patriot in a sea of doublespeak and betrayal. https://youtu.be/naI8cqLNFRM

[Lurikeen]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You see, that's where the United States Constitution disagrees with you. Freedom of religion is established under an entirely different doctrine than the notion of 'protected classes' in the Civil Rights Act.

The Supreme Court developed this position in Reynolds v. United States (1879), saying "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices". You may not like it, but that is the established legal precedent in this country. The 1st amendment does not protect the right of Satanists to practice human sacrifice, nor does it protect any other degree of unlawful religious behavior.

Thank God we didn't let fanatics like you place "Divine law" (read, Sharia) above secular law when this country was founded.

Nice job Lune! You almost know how to do a web search! The context of Reynolds vs. USA was not an indictment to criminal charges. The case, for example, of the Oregon company refusing to bake a cake for homosexuals was a case for criminal charges.

And you're right. Your ilk may be hiding behind "legal precedent" for now, but that's not forever. We're coming for you. Mark my words.

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Me? hehehe... You should listen to this young gentleman for 4min, Lune, I even gave his vid thumbs up mad props. A guy like that nowadays is quite literally risking his very life standing up like that in this country, against the left. But this is one that wont be forgotten, a true patriot in a sea of doublespeak and betrayal. https://youtu.be/naI8cqLNFRM

Had he tried that in California he'd have been beaten by a mob of La Raza. Holding a Trump sign and defending Trump that is

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Lurikeen [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

And you're right. Your ilk may be hiding behind "legal precedent" for now, but that's not forever. We're coming for you. Mark my words.

If by "we're coming for you" you mean "we're abandoning our religion and joining you" you've got it right

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Lurikeen]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If by "we're coming for you" you mean "we're abandoning our religion and joining you" you've got it right

No, I mean that there is sadly going to be a backlash against your dumb asses who thought you could abuse the consciences of those of faith who disagreed with your opinions concerning homosexuality. Edit: And to be clear there will be a "back lash" within the law. I am not talking about violence.