Us Courts Establish Government As The Official Religion Of United States.

the problem with that angle of course is that the only person without religion is a person who is incapable of making a moral determination.

are you saying (on their behalf) that non-het people and I presume atheists are not capable of making moral determinations?

 

So then you believe that the gays rights over the course of history since the creation of the constitution have not been infringed upon by the government? I disagree.

So then you believe that the christians rights resulting from the government commercial religion have not been infringed upon by the government? I disagree.

You seem to want to take the same topic and apply it to one party and pretend it does not exist for the other party. non sequitur disjointed premises.

The govmnt is charged with creating a remedy under its laws for the people it serves. The kliens and davis were not afforded timely remedy if at all.

Private rights of men and women carry over into the full scope of the public arena, hence the use of the term 'liberty' and associated amendments, therefore not limited to exercising in private as you seem to believe.

 

"Moral determination" is an oxymoron.

Morals are dictated.

Ethics come through reasoning.

 

The gvmnt dictates it morals and writes it into law.

That may be fine if I had said 'moral determination', I said moral determinations, in other words:

Moral reasoning as a process where someone determines the difference between 'right and wrong' in a personal situation

ethics lends itself to the public version, another usurped theory that we the people actually get to vote on these changes. We the people do not.

The distinction should trigger a plethora of reasons the two cannot be combined as has been done in todays adjuditrocity.

 

ZZap, are you able to make your statements more concisely?

 

Specious, time wasting and contradictory. Think I'll get me an apple.

 

the problem is that I have to keep repeating myself when people debate a point using only 1/2 the elements of the argument. Failure to take into consideration the points noted either to dismiss them through a better position or pointing out error is a waste of time. What do you feel should be argued differently?

 

Its a legal argument, and bonafide cause of action.

again as I said without the organic law, which extends frankly back to the magna charta and beyond if you really want to start splitting hairs, without the organic law this gvmnt could not exist.

religious law extends far beyond the british law.

 

Which religion's law?

 

I agreed with that starting in the OP forward.

The kliens who are Christian have been penalized 135,000 dollars in violation of their right to exercise their religion.

That right is a reserved right stipulated in the first amendment of the constitution of the united states.

you see everyone is going around in circles pretending that 1000 pound gorilla is not the room: the first amendment right to exercise religion.

another 360 circle.
you see everyone is going around in circles pretending that 1000 pound gorilla is not the room: the first amendment right to exercise religion.

davis swore to uphold the constitution which contains the first amendment right to exercise her religion.


You have to dipose of the first amendment or show that regulatory code has a higher standing in law than the organic law that created the government.

Other cases this is more difficult to make the distinction, this case however is apples and apples and we know that homosexuality is a religious matter since the beginning of time therefore it stands as a religious matter today.

 

I have seen some weird ass logic during my time here on the forums of the hip, but this might take the cake

 

• Leviticus 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1
  
• Leviticus 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them."
  
• 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
  
• Romans 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

https://carm.org/bible-homosexuality


I said many times before why are you all pretending its not been said before? Again, judeo-christian, muslim, pretty sure sharia law, therefore this is religious subject matter.

instead of asking me to constantly repeat myself why not level an argument to dispose of my argument?

 

feel free to state an argument and lets see how you dispose of the issues.

Lets start with the first amendments right to exercise your religion.

Do you have an argument that disposes it?

Maybe an argument that it does not apply to the kliens or davis?

Anything more than the nothing I have seen so far?