What will the Catholic Church do about homosexuals filing lawsuits against Christian business owners?

[polskieserce]

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me where in the Constitution the federal government is authorized to force businesses to cater to unwanted clients.  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is unconstitutional.  That law, along with Roe vs. Wade, was allowed to stand because of judicial activism by an overzealous judicial branch.  When the Constitution was written, it was designed to serve the interests of the land owning class that the Founding Fathers belonged to.  I agree that that Founding Fathers were brilliant men.  They were such cunning charlatans that to this very day, people actually believe the Constitution was designed for the common man when reality could not be further from the truth.  Although I'm not a fan of the Constitution, it does have its perks (freedom of association, right to bear arms, free speech, etc).  The Constitution did nothing for Blacks, Native Americans, women, the poor, etc.  The trans-Atlantic slave trade was Constitutional when our nation was founded.  You have to be a fool to think that the Constitution, which permitted the slave trade and genocide of Native Americans, somehow allows the federal government to force business owners to  serve people they don't like.

[little2add]

15 hours ago, polskieserce said:

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is unconstitutional. 

Why?

[polskieserce]

5 hours ago, little2add said:

Why?

It was never authorized by the Constitution.

[little2add]

who?

[little2add]

15 hours ago, polskieserce said:

It was never authorized by the Constitution.

 Not sure what you mean by that    

[havok579257]

18 hours ago, polskieserce said:

It was never authorized by the Constitution.

Are only things authorized by the constitution good? Is that what your trying to get at?

[Peace]

On 3/7/2017 at 10:30 PM, polskieserce said:

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me where in the Constitution the federal government is authorized to force businesses to cater to unwanted clients.  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is unconstitutional.  That law, along with Roe vs. Wade, was allowed to stand because of judicial activism by an overzealous judicial branch.  When the Constitution was written, it was designed to serve the interests of the land owning class that the Founding Fathers belonged to.  I agree that that Founding Fathers were brilliant men.  They were such cunning charlatans that to this very day, people actually believe the Constitution was designed for the common man when reality could not be further from the truth.  Although I'm not a fan of the Constitution, it does have its perks (freedom of association, right to bear arms, free speech, etc).  The Constitution did nothing for Blacks, Native Americans, women, the poor, etc.  The trans-Atlantic slave trade was Constitutional when our nation was founded.  You have to be a fool to think that the Constitution, which permitted the slave trade and genocide of Native Americans, somehow allows the federal government to force business owners to  serve people they don't like.

You are living in La-La Land. The Constitution has been amended many times since it's original ratification. And hardly anyone thinks that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is unconstitutional except for you and Rand Paul. The rest of the universe disagrees with you, and you have absolutely no authority to impose these silly views on anyone. So get over it.

[little2add]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Polski, 

the first amendment  guarantees  your right free speech .  It ( in my opinion ) also Implies that  discrimination is illegal based on solely  on your personal  religious or otherwise beliefs.  

  A florist who refuses to provide flowers  to a group of people because you don't like their lifestyle is  also unconstitutional 

[Peace]

On 3/5/2017 at 10:01 PM, KnightofChrist said:

Still, to call little old ladies names isn't something a man with respect should be doing.

Artists should not be forced by the State to make forms of expression or speech that violate religious beliefs. Civil Rights also protect religious persons, such as Jewish people. But that doesn't give a Jewish person the right or the State on his behalf to force a Muslim person to commission a painting of Mohammed, even if it is tasteful. A wedding cake is as much a work of art as a painting. Having rights doesn't give us the right to violate the rights of others, forcing them to violate their rights in the name of our rights. We cannot force someone to make a form of speech or expression that they do not want to speak or express.

 

 

On 3/5/2017 at 7:53 PM, Socrates said:

Frankly, it's irrelevant whether you, I, or anyone else understands or agrees with this baker's decision.  If their conscience won't let them supply wedding cakes to a "gay wedding," it's not the place of the federal government to force them to do so.

Why did this homosexual couple feel compelled to seek out a conservative Christian baker to bake their "wedding" cake (while evidently somehow advertising to the baker the intent of the cake)?  And when turned down, why did they feel compelled to turn this into a federal case, rather than simply going to any of umpteen other bakeries that would happily bake the cake for them?

 

But the question we should all be asking is why should the federal government be involved at all in who bakes cakes for what?

And anyone who thinks that the militant "gay" lobby, and their leftist allies in the courts will stop with cakes and flowers is deluding himself.  Churches will be the next target, and there will be demands that churches either perform same-sex "wedding" ceremonies, or at least lend out the buildings for such purposes, and stop calling homosexual activity a sin, or else lose tax-exempt status.  

 

I generally don't have a problem with them refusing to bake the cake, but I have trouble articulating a proper rationale for that conclusion.

Where do you draw the line?

Let's say you went to a local restaurant. The owner sees you make the sign of the cross before eating and says "My Religion X tells me that all Christians are dogs that should not be served. Therefore, I refuse to serve you. Get up and leave my restaurant."

Let's say that the State of Texas enacted a law that imposed a fine on any restaurants that engaged in that type of discrimination against Christians. Would the Texas law violate the person's religious freedom, by forcing him to serve people who his religion dictates that he should not serve?

I am not really sure how the situation with the cake is much different.

[polskieserce]

3 hours ago, Peace said:

You are living in La-La Land. The Constitution has been amended many times since it's original ratification. And hardly anyone thinks that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is unconstitutional except for you and Rand Paul. The rest of the universe disagrees with you, and you have absolutely no authority to impose these silly views on anyone. So get over it.

And none of those amendments authorized the government to give special treatment to certain classes of people.  The 13th amendment abolished slavery.  It did not authorize the government to force business owners to do business with racial minorities, non-heterosexuals, religious minorities, etc.  Face it bro, if you are looking to advance the status of Black people, the Constitution is the last place you should be looking to (unless you are planning to amend it to make these changes).  William Lloyd Garrison, a prominent abolitionist, said that the Constitution was a pact with the devil.  That guy understood what the deal was.  You, on the other hand, do not.

Here is another point that nobody brought up: despite the fact that there is no constitutional backing for your stances, your side still got its way with the anti-discrimination bans.  And even now, we still continue to talk about the status of colored people 152 years after the end of the civil war.  What the federal government should have done was pass a constitutional amendment to seize land from the slave owners and give them to the newly liberated black slaves.  Given that the Union States were in a vengeful mood, the amendment would have passed.  If that had been done, blacks would be far more integrated into American society than they are now.

[havok579257]

8 minutes ago, polskieserce said:

And none of those amendments authorized the government to give special treatment to certain classes of people.  The 13th amendment abolished slavery.  It did not authorize the government to force business owners to do business with racial minorities, non-heterosexuals, religious minorities, etc.  Face it bro, if you are looking to advance the status of Black people, the Constitution is the last place you should be looking to (unless you are planning to amend it to make these changes).  William Lloyd Garrison, a prominent abolitionist, said that the Constitution was a pact with the devil.  That guy understood what the deal was.  You, on the other hand, do not.

Here is another point that nobody brought up: despite the fact that there is no constitutional backing for your stances, your side still got its way with the anti-discrimination bans.  And even now, we still continue to talk about the status of colored people 152 years after the end of the civil war.  What the federal government should have done was pass a constitutional amendment to seize land from the slave owners and give them to the newly liberated black slaves.  Given that the Union States were in a vengeful mood, the amendment would have passed.  If that had been done, blacks would be far more integrated into American society than they are now.

Except black suffrage did not suddenly end with the end of the civil war.  Do you not remember "separate but equal"?  It's not like suddenly after the civil war ended blacks were suddenly equal. I don't even have a clue how you can argue that.  I mean just look at the many immoral things done to black people after the civil war by the government and it's people.  Separate but equal is just one example.  Although the way you talk, anything after the civil war was fine and we shouldn't be talking about unequality towards blacks because once they were no longer slaves everything was right in this country.

[Peace]

42 minutes ago, polskieserce said:

And none of those amendments authorized the government to give special treatment to certain classes of people.  The 13th amendment abolished slavery.  It did not authorize the government to force business owners to do business with racial minorities, non-heterosexuals, religious minorities, etc. 

I do not particularly desire to spend my time debating the issue with you. To me, it is silly nonsense and it is not worth my time. We can agree to disagree on the matter.

Quote

Face it bro, if you are looking to advance the status of Black people, the Constitution is the last place you should be looking to (unless you are planning to amend it to make these changes).  William Lloyd Garrison, a prominent abolitionist, said that the Constitution was a pact with the devil.  That guy understood what the deal was.  You, on the other hand, do not.

I am looking to advance the gospel of Jesus Christ. If you think that people should be free to discriminate on the basis of race, then you do not understand the gospel.

Quote

Here is another point that nobody brought up: despite the fact that there is no constitutional backing for your stances, your side still got its way with the anti-discrimination bans.  And even now, we still continue to talk about the status of colored people 152 years after the end of the civil war. 

Yes well my side just so happens to be God's side as well.  Why don't you take it up with God if you are so concerned about it?

Quote

 

1935 The equality of men rests essentially on their dignity as persons and the rights that flow from it:

Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God's design.40

 

Quote

What the federal government should have done was pass a constitutional amendment to seize land from the slave owners and give them to the newly liberated black slaves.  Given that the Union States were in a vengeful mood, the amendment would have passed.  If that had been done, blacks would be far more integrated into American society than they are now.

African Americans are doing very well by my account of things. But perhaps we would be doing even better had we received the so-called "40 acres and a mule". Regardless, your argument is silly, because the fact that land may have been beneficial, does not mean that anti-discrimination laws should also not have been enacted.

It is also quite amusing that you refer to hypothetical actions that did not, would not, and will not occur, to attempt to justify removal of laws that were possible and that have achieved good. You are trying to replace a concrete action, with a fairy tale that will never happen.

But on the other hand, if you desire to donate some land or money to me to rectify past injustices to my ancestors, please let me know, and I will send you an address where you can make the donation.

Edited March 10, 2017 by Peace

[polskieserce]

1 hour ago, havok579257 said:

Except black suffrage did not suddenly end with the end of the civil war.  Do you not remember "separate but equal"?  It's not like suddenly after the civil war ended blacks were suddenly equal. I don't even have a clue how you can argue that.  I mean just look at the many immoral things done to black people after the civil war by the government and it's people.  Separate but equal is just one example.  Although the way you talk, anything after the civil war was fine and we shouldn't be talking about unequality towards blacks because once they were no longer slaves everything was right in this country.

And I never said that blacks were automatically equal after the civil war.  I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion from my last post.  Blacks had it very rough because they had virtually no capital.  And despite their struggles, it still doesn't make the '64 civil rights act constitutional.  If you haven't figured it out by now, the Constitution wasn't exactly written with human suffering in mind.

That being said, if I was running a business, I would serve blacks but I would still want to be able to reject customers I'm not comfortable with for whatever reason I choose.

 

44 minutes ago, Peace said:

I do not particularly desire to spend my time debating the issue with you. To me, it is silly nonsense and it is not worth my time. We can agree to disagree on the matter.

I am looking to advance the gospel of Jesus Christ. If you think that people should be free to discriminate on the basis of race, then you do not understand the gospel.

Yes well my side just so happens to be God's side as well.  Why don't you take it up with God if you are so concerned about it?

 

African Americans are doing very well by my account of things. But perhaps we would be doing even better had we received the so-called "40 acres and a mule". Regardless, your argument is silly, because the fact that land may have been beneficial, does not mean that anti-discrimination laws should also not have been enacted.

It is also quite amusing that you refer to hypothetical actions that did not, would not, and will not occur, to attempt to justify removal of laws that were possible and that have achieved good. You are trying to replace a concrete action, with a fairy tale that will never happen.

But on the other hand, if you desire to donate some land or money to me to rectify past injustices to my ancestors, please let me know, and I will send you an address where you can make the donation.

Very well, we can agree to disagree.  Just a reminder, the Constitution was not designed around the gospel of Jesus.  It was designed with the interests of rich white men in mind.

African Americans are doing very poorly by many of their own accounts and I would agree with them.  The fact that they had no capital after being liberated was a major cause.  I still assert that land should have been seized from slave owners and given to the former slaves.  I am not saying that should be done now.  At this point, it's water under the bridge.

[little2add]

12 hours ago, polskieserce said:

the Constitution was not designed around the gospel of Jesus.  It was designed with the interests of rich white men in mind.

I  beg to differ.  most of the founding fathers were christian and know the bible.  

slavery existed long before (new world)  America.    the practice of christianity was not a right or even permitted in most of the old world. 

Edited March 10, 2017 by little2add

[little2add]

23 hours ago, polskieserce said:

it still doesn't make the '64 civil rights act constitutional.

its the law.  do you disagree with it?