A Muslim Iman that I actually like and wish the best. . . but

[detbuch]

It might take a long time for his version of Islam to happen . . . but we in the West can hope. It is not only a greatly reformed version, he calls for it to recognize the separation of church (mosque) and state.

[Jim in CT]

has he been assassinated yet?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

has he been assassinated yet?

Not yet. He does get a lot of death threats.

[Nebe]

It would be nice to see the religious right back off and accept the separation of church and state as well.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

It would be nice to see the religious right back off and accept the separation of church and state as well.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It would be nice if the leftists politicians and judges would back off of trampling on the First and Second Amendments.

What does the religious right do to mess with the so-called separation of church and state?

[Nebe]

Oh I dunno... maybe they vote in their own to represent their beliefs and push their holy agenda and encourage stupid holy wars and also oppress the personal freedoms of people who don’t follow their beliefs in the name of their god...
that’s just my take on it. Our government should be 100% neutral on anything to do with any religion.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Oh I dunno... maybe they vote in their own to represent their beliefs and push their holy agenda and encourage stupid holy wars and also oppress the personal freedoms of people who don’t follow their beliefs in the name of their god...
that’s just my take on it. Our government should be 100% neutral on anything to do with any religion.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"maybe they vote in their own to represent their beliefs "

Oh my god, who the hell do they think they are, to vote in accordance with their religiously-informed consciences?

"encourage stupid holy wars "

Are you talking about the Crusades?

"Our government should be 100% neutral on anything to do with any religion" Which is precisely what I want, because for the last 8 years, we had a jerk who actively attacked Christianity. When you try to tell the Little Sisters Of The Poor that they have to pay for abortions and birth control, you are somebody who hates the first amendment.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Oh I dunno... maybe they vote in their own to represent their beliefs

So would you be willing to stop voting for those who represent your beliefs?

and push their holy agenda

And should every one else also have no agenda?

and encourage stupid holy wars

Which holy wars are the Christian right encouraging. And which party or form of government does not engage in wars?

and also oppress the personal freedoms of people who don’t follow their beliefs in the name of their god...

Which personal freedoms of whom have the Christian right oppressed?

Abortion? Abortion is philosophically repugnant to Christians and other religions, left or right, to various atheists, to people of all stripes. There is a great debate on whether abortion denies the right to life, and, like all political issues, can be decided at the ballot box. If voting is oppression, then we all oppress each other.

Not baking a gay cake? That does not oppress the right of gays to have a gay cake. Quite the opposite, forcing some to bake a cake they don't want to bake is oppressing many of the bakers' rights.

that’s just my take on it. Our government should be 100% neutral on anything to do with any religion.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And yet it is imposing on religious rights.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

And yet it is imposing on religious rights.

There was a case where Muslim truck drivers were fired because they refused to transport alcohol, due to religious beliefs. The Obama administration had an EEOC lawyer sue on their behalf, saying that an employer cannot force an en employee to violate the principles of his religion, when an accommodation can easily be made.

Here is what the EEOC lawyer said...

"Everyone has a right to observe his or her religious beliefs, and employers don't get to pick and choose which religions and which religious practices they will accommodate. If an employer can reasonably accommodate an employee's religious practice without an undue hardship, then it must do so. That is a principle which has been memorialized in federal employment law for almost 50 years, and it is why EEOC is in this case."

Obama believes that Muslims are entitled to this protection, but not Christians who own bakeries. If anyone can explain why that's not glaring discrimination, well, I'm all ears.

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

There was a case where Muslim truck drivers were fired because they refused to transport alcohol, due to religious beliefs. The Obama administration had an EEOC lawyer sue on their behalf, saying that an employer cannot force an en employee to violate the principles of his religion, when an accommodation can easily be made.

Here is what the EEOC lawyer said...

"Everyone has a right to observe his or her religious beliefs, and employers don't get to pick and choose which religions and which religious practices they will accommodate. If an employer can reasonably accommodate an employee's religious practice without an undue hardship, then it must do so. That is a principle which has been memorialized in federal employment law for almost 50 years, and it is why EEOC is in this case."

Obama believes that Muslims are entitled to this protection, but not Christians who own bakeries. If anyone can explain why that's not glaring discrimination, well, I'm all ears.

Kim Baker didn’t loose her job.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Kim Baker didn’t loose her job.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Obama never acted on behalf of Christians who didn’t want to participate in gay weddings. The little sisters of the poor had to take obama to the Supreme Court.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

There was a case where Muslim truck drivers were fired because they refused to transport alcohol, due to religious beliefs. The Obama administration had an EEOC lawyer sue on their behalf, saying that an employer cannot force an en employee to violate the principles of his religion, when an accommodation can easily be made.

Here is what the EEOC lawyer said...

"Everyone has a right to observe his or her religious beliefs, and employers don't get to pick and choose which religions and which religious practices they will accommodate. If an employer can reasonably accommodate an employee's religious practice without an undue hardship, then it must do so. That is a principle which has been memorialized in federal employment law for almost 50 years, and it is why EEOC is in this case."

Obama believes that Muslims are entitled to this protection, but not Christians who own bakeries. If anyone can explain why that's not glaring discrimination, well, I'm all ears.

A few corrections Jim.

The Administration didn't sue on behalf of the men the EEOC did. Also, the suits are different. One is about the "company" the other about the "individual." The transport company admitted they could have easily changed the schedule to accommodate the employees. The baker didn't seem to provide for this flexibility.

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by spence

A few corrections Jim.

The Administration didn't sue on behalf of the men the EEOC did. Also, the suits are different. One is about the "company" the other about the "individual." The transport company admitted they could have easily changed the schedule to accommodate the employees. The baker didn't seem to provide for this flexibility.

Yeah, but her emails......
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

A few corrections Jim.

The Administration didn't sue on behalf of the men the EEOC did. Also, the suits are different. One is about the "company" the other about the "individual." The transport company admitted they could have easily changed the schedule to accommodate the employees. The baker didn't seem to provide for this flexibility.

Who does the EEOC work for?

The happy gay couple couldn’t get another baker? There were no other bakeries?

And again, the little sisters of the poor successfully sued obama at the Supreme Court, when El Deuce tried to force Catholic nuns to pay for birth control and abortions. Perfectly in keeping with the second amendment! Pass no law which restricts the free exercise of religion, whatever.

The constitution was given a stay of execution as soon as that horses ass left the Oval Office.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

LOL.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

The baker was not hiring any potential employees. He was selling cakes and pastries which he made and sold to anyone who wanted to buy them, including gays. He did not, nor did he want to, make gay cakes. No matter who wanted to buy such cakes. When the government can force you to produce something you don't want to produce, that government is acting tyrannically. And those who speak of "rights" and characterize such things as the right to demand or force someone to make something that person does not want to make, those people have a very cynical and limited notion of what a "right" is.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The baker was not hiring any potential employees. He was selling cakes and pastries which he made and sold to anyone who wanted to buy them, including gays. He did not, nor did he want to, make gay cakes.

Ok, so a gay cupcake, peanut butter brownie, raisin maple scone, bearclaw or delicate buttery croissant are all fine but if it's a wedding cake that's unethical.

Odd.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Ok, so a gay cupcake, peanut butter brownie, raisin maple scone, bearclaw or delicate buttery croissant are all fine but if it's a wedding cake that's unethical.

Odd.

That's the reason that religious liberty is protected by the Constitution. It is "odd" to non-believers. If being "odd" was a crime, there are times that you'd be breaking the law.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

That's the reason that religious liberty is protected by the Constitution. It is "odd" to non-believers. If being "odd" was a crime, there are times that you'd be breaking the law.

No, that's why we have Civil Rights and Equal Protection. Otherwise you'd have people claiming any religious exemption for anything.

And you know this.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

No, that's why we have Civil Rights and Equal Protection. Otherwise you'd have people claiming any religious exemption for anything.

And you know this.

The Muslim truckers refused to do their stated job, for religious reasons. The owners of the company were not allowed to punish them.

It's the Christians in this case who are being denied equal protection. This is why the Little Sisters prevailed at the Supreme Court, over Obama, who tried to deny them their protected rights.

Read the freedom of religion clause, and tell me how you can conclude anything other than telling the happy couple to find another baker. If Muslim truckers can refuse to transport things that violate their religion and not be subject to punishment, then the Little Sisters can say that they aren't providing birth control and abortions.

The Bill Of Rights applies, even when liberals don't particularly like it.

There is a Christian baker case at the Supreme Court right now. Thank God for Gorsuch.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The baker was not hiring any potential employees. He was selling cakes and pastries which he made and sold to anyone who wanted to buy them, including gays. He did not, nor did he want to, make gay cakes. No matter who wanted to buy such cakes. When the government can force you to produce something you don't want to produce, that government is acting tyrannically. And those who speak of "rights" and characterize such things as the right to demand or force someone to make something that person does not want to make, those people have a very cynical and limited notion of what a "right" is.

Constitution, shmonstitution.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

What does that bumper sticker say? “If your religion requires hate, find a new one”


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Nebe

What does that bumper sticker say? “If your religion requires hate, find a new one”


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Irony here is that most religions are really based on love...it's the original meaning of belief in this context.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Irony here is that most religions are really based on love...it's the original meaning of belief in this context.

What's love got to do with it?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Nebe

What does that bumper sticker say? “If your religion requires hate, find a new one”


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's the sibling to the bumper sticker that says "If your opinion requires hating Christians, find new one."

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by spence

A few corrections Jim.

The Administration didn't sue on behalf of the men the EEOC did. Also, the suits are different. One is about the "company" the other about the "individual." The transport company admitted they could have easily changed the schedule to accommodate the employees.

The baker didn't seem to provide for this flexibility.

Originally Posted by spence

Ok, so a gay cupcake, peanut butter brownie, raisin maple scone, bearclaw or delicate buttery croissant are all fine but if it's a wedding cake that's unethical.

Odd.

I have no horse in this fight but if you really looked into this wedding cake issue, you will find that they are fine with selling them a cake, they are not fine with decorating the cake with all the pro-gay stuff the customer wanted on it apparently. They have that right.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

I have no horse in this fight but if you really looked into this wedding cake issue, you will find that they are fine with selling them a cake, they are not fine with decorating the cake with all the pro-gay stuff the customer wanted on it apparently. They have that right.

No, that is incorrect. They were ok selling them a premade cake. They were not ok making them a custom case even if it was identical to a cake used for a heterosexual wedding. There was never a request to make the cake in any way unique to a gay couple. That is why it is illegal under Colorado law-discrimination based on who they were, not what they wanted the cake to say or look like.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by zimmy

No, that is incorrect. They were ok selling them a premade cake. They were not ok making them a custom case even if it was identical to a cake used for a heterosexual wedding. There was never a request to make the cake in any way unique to a gay couple. That is why it is illegal under Colorado law-discrimination based on who they were, not what they wanted the cake to say or look like.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bingo!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Bingo!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

In the Muslim trucker case, Obama’s EEOC argued that employees at work can not be forced to act in any way that goes against their religion. The Christian baker is being asked to do the same exact thing, to abandon a specific tenet of his faith because he is at work.

Neither you nor I agree with the bakers pisition on gay marriage. That doesn’t mean that the first amendment doesn’t apply to him. That’s the beauty of the constitution, it doesn’t only apply when one side or the other agrees.

Like it or not, freedom of speech means that the an artist can hang a painting of Christ covered in manure. Like it or not, freedom of the press means that Rachael Maddow can go on the air and say things I despise. Like it or not, freedom of assembly means that the klan can hold a peaceful rally. And like it or not, freedom of religion means that people cannot be forced to act against their religion, even when they happen to be at work.

It’s very easy to say you support the constitution when you agree with the underlying principle. The test, is whether or not you support it when you don’t like the right being sought.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

No, that is incorrect. They were ok selling them a premade cake. They were not ok making them a custom case even if it was identical to a cake used for a heterosexual wedding. There was never a request to make the cake in any way unique to a gay couple. That is why it is illegal under Colorado law-discrimination based on who they were, not what they wanted the cake to say or look like.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When the baker was informed that the cake was for a gay wedding, that was tantamount to asking the baker to participate in a wedding that was against his religion--regardless of what the cake looked like. Just asking for a wedding cake does not create a context that trespasses religious beliefs unless the religion bans weddings. That is why the gays specified what the cake was for. To create that context so that the baker could be sued if, as they expected, he refused.