Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
If he's that devout wouldn't he consider the marriage of two dogs an insult to the tradition?
I'm thinking he considered it no more than a harmless fantasy not intended to insult the tradition of marriage, or to change that tradition in any way. If there was some dog lover movement to "legalize" dog marriage, that would be a different story. Most Christians aren't so easily offended as, perhaps, Muslims are. If they were, the present state of government regulations and judicial decisions, as well as media portrayals, would have our society in a constant turmoil of burnings and bombings and all manor of havoc and killing as goes on in many Muslim dominated societies. Are you saying that he should have been more personally offended by the dog wedding? That's up to him. To be or not to be.
Also, what does Jesus really say about homosexuality? Not much...
Jesus added a New Testament to the religion he was born in. I don't know if he intended to completely throw out the old religion. Certainly most Christians don't consider the Old Testament to be totally obsolete. They seem to abide much of what is in it, including its views on sodomy.
The judge didn't make up the law.
-spence
|
Progressive judges have been making up laws for the past eighty years. And the progression and precedents of those "decisions" have led to not only laws on which present judges model their decisions, but have created a whole new mode of "interpretation." This judge follows in this progressive tradition by deciding on his own to determine what would create hurt or harm to society. The sense the Founders had of judicial decision was a determination based on law and an interpretation of what the words in the law meant, as written, and if governmental legislation actually abided by the restrictions the law allowed (i.e. enumerations in the Constitution). So, in his way, this judge added to this progressive tradition of inserting his personal views and feelings about what is good for society rather than following the ultimate law, the First Amendment. Their might be room for local government to impose restrictions on absolute (like that word here?) denial of service to a class of people (though, as I have said, that is in itself discriminatory), but not if it contradicts a constitutional guarantee. Not only did his decision, in the limited text of the reports, fail to include the State of Colorado's Constitution not recognizing gay marriage, but it violated the baker's First Amendment right in order to satisfy his personal opinion on what would harm society.