Whats next??????????

[Goooh]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Perhaps not, but I'm sure a few have realized they had some wrong facts.

I was recently almost convinced to change my mind on the Confederate flag, because a trusted friend explained that the CSA Constitution demonstrated both white supremacy and insisted that the Confederate states maintain legalized slavery in perpetuity. This would have been unacceptable, since forcing states to accept slavery forever is not "states' rights" but rather centralized control.

However, once I carefully read the CSA Constitution, it was clear that the document permitted CSA states to regulate slavery as they saw fit among their own citizens, and that the CSA Constitution was very similar to the US Constitution, except with the minimal clarifications needed to prevent federal intrusion into issues that the US Constitution had left to the states. The states even retained the power to ban slavery in the entire CSA through the amendment process, and (unlike the US Constitution which guaranteed the overseas slave trade for 18 more years but taxed it) the CSA Constitution immediately banned the overseas slave trade.

Certainly, the Confederate flag can be a symbol of different things to different people, but when men were fighting under it, they were fighting for the principles outlined in the CSA Constitution. To be sure, chattle slavery and white supremacy are horrible evils. But the CSA Constitution does not represent these much more strongly than the original US Constitution.

However, in 1861-1865, the CSA Constitution did articulate a resistance to federal centralized control more clearly than the US Constitution. In 2015 it is easy to see how one can understand it to be a symbol for individual and state liberties that have been gradually eroded by the way the US Constitution is bastardized and misinterpreted by the activist federal courts and those who would prefer to accomplish their social agendas through the fiats of an oligarchy rather than through the republican process originally guaranteed by the Constitution.

How is being forced to involuntarily perform labor in ways that violate one's faith and conscience not an example of the "involuntary servitude" banned under the 13th amendment to the US Constitution?

Just as those who supported slavery were supporting evil, ALL who support citizens being forced to involuntarily violate their faith and conscience with forced labor are supporting a horrible evil.

But the bible says


"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.

9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him."

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Goooh

But the bible says


"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6 Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7 Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not people, 8 because you know that the Lord will reward each one for whatever good they do, whether they are slave or free.

9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him."

Would parents encouraging their children to obey their teachers at school necessarily imply that the parents support forced, compulsory schooling?

Is it possible to recognize that instructions that represent wisdom and righteousness in a flawed situation do not necessary represent support for the flawed system?

And while many parents would generally instruct their children to obey their teachers, I think most would also instruct their children not to take that obedience into areas that would offend faith or conscience.

Having authority over another, whether as a teacher, parent, coach, employer, pastor, or agent of the government does not make it right to exercise one's power through the forced violation of their faith and/or conscience.

[Goooh]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Would parents encouraging their children to obey their teachers at school necessarily imply that the parents support forced, compulsory schooling?



Is it possible to recognize that instructions that represent wisdom and righteousness in a flawed situation do not necessary represent support for the flawed system?



And while many parents would generally instruct their children to obey their teachers, I think most would also instruct their children not to take that obedience into areas that would offend faith or conscience.



Having authority over another, whether as a teacher, parent, coach, employer, pastor, or agent of the government does not make it right to exercise one's power through the forced violation of their faith and/or conscience.

The point is the bible can be taken many ways, and the basis of the disdain for same sex marriage is biblical.

Portions of the bible are conveniently ignored while others are lifted high, and interpretations are infinite anyhow.

Is it time for a digital "newest testament"?

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Goooh

The point is the bible can be taken many ways, and the basis of the disdain for same sex marriage is biblical.

Portions of the bible are conveniently ignored while others are lifted high, and interpretations are infinite anyhow.

Is it time for a digital "newest testament"?

The point of the 1st amendment is to allow individual citizens to exercise their faith and conscience without the burden to prove that it is reasonable or right.

The point of the 13th amendment is an absolute ban on involuntary servitude within the US.

I notice you avoided the question about how forcing citizens to violate their faith and conscience in performing labor in support of homosexual weddings is not involuntary servitude.

The arguments I have heard focus on whether the forced servitude is justified or reasonable, since it is clearly involuntary.

[Goooh]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

The point of the 1st amendment is to allow individual citizens to exercise their faith and conscience without the burden to prove that it is reasonable or right.



The point of the 13th amendment is an absolute ban on involuntary servitude within the US.



I notice you avoided the question about how forcing citizens to violate their faith and conscience in performing labor in support of homosexual weddings is not involuntary servitude.



The arguments I have heard focus on whether the forced servitude is justified or reasonable, since it is clearly involuntary.

I didn't ignore the question, I just didn't read your whole post and still haven't.

[Reggoh]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

The point of the 1st amendment is to allow individual citizens to exercise their faith and conscience without the burden to prove that it is reasonable or right.

The point of the 13th amendment is an absolute ban on involuntary servitude within the US.

I notice you avoided the question about how forcing citizens to violate their faith and conscience in performing labor in support of homosexual weddings is not involuntary servitude.

The arguments I have heard focus on whether the forced servitude is justified or reasonable, since it is clearly involuntary.

MG I am against same sex marriage based on my religious beliefs.

I think you are misinterpreting the meaning of "involuntary servitude".

Business owners have a right to serve the public and it IS voluntary... they have chosen to open a public business. This business is privately owned but it is in service to the general public.

Under our government, they do not have a right to refuse that public service based on religion, race, or sexual orientation.

If I decide to sell you a boat and you show up to my house and you are hispanic... I can tell you to get the hell out and I'm not selling my boat... I thought you said your name was JOHN.... not JAUN.

If I open a business to sell boats and you show up to buy one I can't refuse to sell it to you based on your race. I would be breaking the law.

The whole WALMART cake thing with the confederate flag is a tough one... If they told the person "I am not baking it because it's a racist symbol" then I believe they are breaking the law because they have brought race into it.
If they just simply refused to bake it, the burden of proof would be on the person to prove it was racially related.

[MathGeek]

Originally Posted by Reggoh

Under our government, they do not have a right to refuse that public service based on religion, race, or sexual orientation.

Please cite the statute under Louisiana or Federal law that prevents refusal of service based on sexual orientation.

Please cite the law or the legal argument giving the US Congress or the LA legislature power to pass laws contrary to the 1st and 13th amendments.

[Reggoh]

Originally Posted by MathGeek

Please cite the statute under Louisiana or Federal law that prevents refusal of service based on sexual orientation.

Please cite the law or the legal argument giving the US Congress or the LA legislature power to pass laws contrary to the 1st and 13th amendments.

MG I couldn't find "sexual orientation" in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964... only race, color, religion, national origin, or sex.

I was wrong... I guess business owners can tell the fags to go take a hike.

I did get this off of the National EEOC Website:
In addition, lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals may bring sex discrimination claims.
These may include, for example, allegations of sexual harassment or other kinds of sex discrimination,
such as adverse actions taken because of the person's non-conformance with sex-stereotypes.

My guess is they are fighting to be included in EEOC the same way the Age Discrimination act was added in 1967 and the Americans with Disabilities Act was added to the list in 1990.

As far as your question about a legal argument that says congress can pass laws contrary to the 1st and 13th amendments.. seriously?

You've never heard of the Constitution??
It is a document written a really long time ago that outlines our 3 branches of government and how they can make and change laws.
Congress can introduce a bill that eliminates the 1st and 13th amendments if they want to... If it passes both houses, it can be signed into law by the president.