User Profile: termyt

termyt

Member Since: February 15, 2011

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • October 21, 2014 at 3:46pm

    Because their entire world view is based on the fervent belief in the nonexistence of something. Their hope is built on Him not being there and their proof is they can’t see Him. When your entire world view is built on a house of cards, you tend to get nervous about it.

  • [1] October 21, 2014 at 3:33pm

    Spoken like a serf, Grover.

    The very worst of all tyrants who have ever ruled on this planet have done so legally with courts backing their monstrous decisions.

    So why shouldn’t a court in the United States also back a strike against freedom that seems so much more reasonable?

    I guess you just know to bow to your betters better than me.

  • October 21, 2014 at 2:46pm

    Ah, so Congress passed a law. OK, well the trumps the Constitution. Oh. Wait a minute…

  • [34] October 21, 2014 at 2:34pm

    It’s really not about whether their interpretation of Christianity is correct or not. It’s about whether we want our government to decide for us whom we will associate/do business with.

    I don’t agree with the Kleins that Christianity requires refusal to bake cakes for gay weddings. I do, however, believe the Kleins have God-endowed rights to religion and association that says if they believe their religion requires them to not associate with certain people or events, they are free to follow their consciences.

    If they are not, I am not and none of us are. Therefore, we are not free.

    Responses (5) +
  • [4] October 21, 2014 at 1:01pm

    We already know this man is either a liar or a fool, so what’s the point in giving his words any credibility?

    America is all about individualism because Christianity is all about individualism. The nature of our relationship with God is an individual one. He wants a relationship with each of us individually.

    This ridiculous poser, who knows nothing but to spout Muslim doctrine about Christ in spite of all historical information we have about him contradicts the Muslim narrative, hasn’t a clue about who He was.

    Christ was no Marxist. Nowhere in His narrative do we see commandments to build up tyrannical nations to force people to at least act like they believe in Him, unlike what Aslan’s Muslim brothers do. We are to follow Him freely of our own accord, which will cause us to unify and take care of the poor, among other things. There’s no government force involved.

  • [4] October 20, 2014 at 2:28pm

    Rabid, I don’t know where to start. Talk about amateur – or at least someone perfectly willing to have their government dictate whom they will associate with and when. Misapplying the Constitution while complaining of others doing the same. It’s kind of weird. Just what form of patriotism are you rabid for? Because it kind of looks like the USSR right now.
    Freedom of religion, like all the others, is an individual one, not a corporate one. Decisions religious folk make are grounded in their religion. That doesn’t wake up at 9:00 on Sunday morning and go back to sleep at noon. They have that freedom all 7 days of the week.
    Forcing someone to violate their beliefs by associating with someone they would not care to is a violation of their First Amendment rights which protect our right to associate or disassociate with whom we please. Whether a speech / religion issue or not, that’s still the First Amendment.
    If I am forced to buy from or sell to any entity for any reason, it violates my right to free association. If forced servitude also contradicts or limits the practice of my religion, then it also violates freedom of religion.
    This doesn’t take a law degree to understand. The Constitution is written in English for all of us to read and digest.

  • [8] October 20, 2014 at 2:02pm

    “So if one holds that it is their religious belief / right to own slaves… Does that mean that form of religious expression is to be allowed? ”
    Apparently so, Zapp, as businesses have no right to refuse service to the master classes. That’s what slavery is – you are a slave if you do not have the right to refuse service to your master.

    The folks here and in photo studios and bakeries all over this country are slaves to their homosexual masters and must provide them the services they feel due.

  • [5] October 20, 2014 at 1:57pm

    What does taming picky pre-schooler’s eating habits have to do with whether or not school lunches have enough calories for high schoolers?

    If there’s a link between the two, I missed it. Are you saying the government is trying to trick us into starving our children to death?

  • [13] October 20, 2014 at 12:04pm

    What if I refuse to buy a sandwich from the deli only because the owner is a black Jewish gay woman? I only buy from straight white Christian men.
    I am discriminating based on race, gender, religion, and sexual orientation, which is against the law. Should I be forced to buy from that deli?
    It sounds ridiculous, right? Why isn’t it ridiculous, then, to force the transaction in the opposite direction?

  • [4] October 20, 2014 at 11:01am

    This really shows J-Mo has has no idea that there’s a difference between public and private, like the good little serfs who will do whatever their lord tells them to do.
    But that’s not fair. I’ll wager that J-Mo understands his rights to his own property. He just doesn’t care about anyone else’s.

  • [21] October 20, 2014 at 10:47am

    Say we have two people, X and Y. One owns a business, the other is a prospective customer. It doesn’t even matter which is which.

    They both have the right to free association, the primary right when it comes to doing business (religious rights actually don’t come into play here, save as a reason for deciding how to use your free association rights).

    Y wants to do business with X. X does not want to do business with Y. What is the answer to this problem that best preserves the rights of both X and Y?

    Free association requires consent of all parties. If someone does not want to associate with another, it is a violation to force that association.

    Let’s say X is the customer and Y is the business. Y wants to do business with X, but X doesn’t want to buy what Y is selling. Does X’s reason matter? No. If X doesn’t want to use his resources on Y, he doesn’t have to. Everyone seems to get it this way.

    Let’s reverse it and say Y is the customer and X is the business owner. Can Y force X to sell him something? How is this different? If X doesn’t want to use his resources on Y, he still should not have to.

    Y has a right to play in the market, but not the right to force another, against his right of association, to be his partner.

  • [8] October 20, 2014 at 10:39am

    Hello, TT2, and good day to you as well. My main goal for my government is one that equally respect the rights of all of its citizens. The only legitimate reason to form a collective government is to secure the rights of its citizens against threats to those rights, both foreign and domestic.

    All branches of the government are capable of infringing our rights, the judiciary included. A court proclaiming that rights infringement is OK, or that clear infringement is not infringement at all is just as bad, if not worse than a law that says the same. “Public accommodation” is nothing but tyrannical doubletalk to make rights infringement sound more reasonable.

    I will make a second post with an example that I hope demonstrates my point of view well.

  • [18] October 20, 2014 at 10:10am

    “Not that I’m a slippery slope kind of guy, but if the IRS ever starts doing its job and stripping 501(c) status from churches who violate the terms (for example, by endorsing politicians), I could see this happening to many ‘former’ churches too.”

    I can see that happening as well, TT2. The problem is, the IRS can’t be allowed to define what a “church” is. That’s a much clearer violation of our rights than this shady “public accommodation” nonsense being used to enslave business owners to the whims of special interest groups.

  • [89] October 20, 2014 at 9:51am

    We’ve lost when people think it’s reasonable to enslave others for the protection of their “rights.”

    It does not matter whether their interpretation of scripture is correct or not. That is what freedom of religion is all about. They are welcome to practice their interpretation of their religion without interference of government so long as that practice does not infringe the rights of another. This right does not end when you start trying to earn a living in any private enterprise.

    To say that these folks are violating anyone’s right to marriage shows that greatest depths of ignorance on what a natural right is. No one has the right to another’s labor. We did allow this once and we fought a Civil War over its practice. If you do not want to sell me something, nothing should force you to. I will simply need to find another vendor or make one myself. My rights are not denied because of your refusal to sell me something.

  • [27] October 20, 2014 at 8:55am

    Of course they will – they can’t afford to pay those protesters forever.

  • [47] October 20, 2014 at 8:49am

    That’s all many of them want and that’s what they seek. But make no mistake, that’s not what the political/militant branch want (most of whom care nothing for homosexual causes). They want to destroy us and remake society in their image – an image where they wield absolute authority and crush all who oppose them.

    Responses (3) +
  • [2] October 20, 2014 at 8:39am

    I don’t like speed limits. I think there are plenty of laws on the books to effectively punish dangerous drivers in a way to make many others think twice about being reckless. We don’t need to criminalize all people going fast because cars 30 years ago could not maintain those speeds safely.

    If it were really about public safety, I doubt I would have ever given the laws a second thought, though. Since it is more about revenue and demonstrating their control over us, I no longer trust them enough to enforce those laws justly.

  • October 19, 2014 at 5:09pm

    Let them have it, for crying out loud.

    If anything, my comment is, “yep. That’s the one you worship, the loser who got tossed from heaven.”

  • [4] October 16, 2014 at 12:54pm

    Each of us has the ability, to some extent, to reason good from evil. This ability to reason makes nothing special of basic morality. We do not like being lied to, we do not want to be murdered, we want to be secure in our own property, we want to be free to follow the path of our choosing, etc.

    Basic morality, and thus law, extends these ideas via the “Golden Rule” to state that, because you do not want to be violated, you also must not violate others.

    Did we learn it from God or just eons of us killing each other? That’s a matter of faith. Do I believe God taught us right from wrong? Yes and no. We define our basic morality based on His principles, but we did not need His law written down to know that we don’t like being lied to or murdered.

    Your final question does not make sense to one such as me. God is, by definition, good, ethical, just – “moral.” It is against His nature to do or request anything that is not good or moral.

  • [6] October 16, 2014 at 12:09pm

    That is the legitimate function of the state; to force that concession only where absolutely necessary. That’s why we write laws.
    So if one person’s morality finds no fault in killing an inconvenient person, that person’s morality will be trumped by the social morality stating murder is wrong and will be punished.
    Now the question is, “Where does the state derive its authority to enforce its morality?” If it comes from the state itself, then the state has the authority to alter it on a whim. That has never lead humankind anywhere but tyranny.
    However, if the moral authority of the state is derived from God, then the state is also subject to God’s morality and lacks the authority to capriciously alter the rights of its members.

123 To page: Go