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

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The Bill Of Rights says that no law shall interfere with the free exercise of religion. It does not say "except in the case of issues of sexuality".

You are ignoring the 225 plus years of legal proceedings and the way the supreme court has dealt with the first amendment. Are you aware that when the first amendment was drafted, states and local governments could abridge the free exercise clause? It is not as simple in practice or law as it is in your mind.

[spence]

Originally Posted by zimmy

You are ignoring the 225 plus years of legal proceedings and the way the supreme court has dealt with the first amendment. Are you aware that when the first amendment was drafted, states and local governments could abridge the free exercise clause? It is not as simple in practice or law as it is in your mind.

He's on autopilot now...just reposting the same thing over and over.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

He's on autopilot now...just reposting the same thing over and over.

Because the text of the first amendment, and how that has been interpreted, is all that matters. You can go on and on about how bigoted and close minded the guy is, and it's worth having that discussion on the issue of gay marriage (the liberals convinced me that gay marriage is something I should support).

But if the question is whether or not the baker has this right, all that matters is that sentence in the bill of rights. Your opinions of what a jerk this guy is (and he may be a jerk), mean absolutely nothing to the question of whether or not he has the legal right to do it.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

You are ignoring the 225 plus years of legal proceedings and the way the supreme court has dealt with the first amendment. Are you aware that when the first amendment was drafted, states and local governments could abridge the free exercise clause? It is not as simple in practice or law as it is in your mind.

"You are ignoring the 225 plus years of legal proceedings"

I posted one legal proceeding (the Muslim truck drivers) that was exactly on point. If you have legal decisions to suggest that Americans must forfeit their religious freedom to avoid hurting the feelings of others, please share. I mean that sincerely, that wasn't a wise-ass comment.

"Are you aware that when the first amendment was drafted, states and local governments could abridge the free exercise clause?"

Can you cite examples?

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"You are ignoring the 225 plus years of legal proceedings"

I posted one legal proceeding (the Muslim truck drivers) that was exactly on point.

"Are you aware that when the first amendment was drafted, states and local governments could abridge the free exercise clause?"

Can you cite examples?

I am moving on from this because it is redundant, but again, your truck driver example is one case with different circumstances than the baker. You choose to view it as on point because it matches your view. You clearly don't recognize any nuance, so it is a waste of my time to provide you with the dozens of nuanced rulings. You can look them up.

There were almost 100 years before the 14th amendment changed that states could abridge the free excerise clause. It wasn't the founders who did that, a congress a century later did that. If you believe in the absolutism of the document as created by the founders, you should also recognize that they, the founders, gave the states the right to abridge it. Others took that right away generations later.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by zimmy

If you believe in the absolutism .....

who are the absolutists now?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

I am moving on from this because it is redundant, but again, your truck driver example is one case with different circumstances than the baker. You choose to view it as on point because it matches your view. You clearly don't recognize any nuance, so it is a waste of my time to provide you with the dozens of nuanced rulings. You can look them up.

There were almost 100 years before the 14th amendment changed that states could abridge the free excerise clause. It wasn't the founders who did that, a congress a century later did that. If you believe in the absolutism of the document as created by the founders, you should also recognize that they, the founders, gave the states the right to abridge it. Others took that right away generations later.

It was done by the amendment process which the Founders put in the Constitution. It wasn't a matter of someone later just negated the Founders will.

And the First Amendment rights were not taken away. They were made stronger and more expansive by applying them to the states.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by zimmy

You are ignoring the 225 plus years of legal proceedings and the way the supreme court has dealt with the first amendment. Are you aware that when the first amendment was drafted, states and local governments could abridge the free exercise clause? It is not as simple in practice or law as it is in your mind.

At the time the First Amendment was drafted, it applied to the federal government. It now still applies to the federal government but also to the states.