Trump’s New Religious Freedom Executive Order Is Little Short Of Awesome
-
Just wait till atheist and satanic organizations start using their tax exempt status's and getting all kinds of politcsl with it. Its gonna be fun to watch
Just wait till atheist and satanic organizations start using their tax exempt status's and getting all kinds of politcsl with it. Its gonna be fun to watch
It will be entertaining the first time any non Christian group uses this law to do something that pisses Christians off.
-
Until Senator Lyndon Johnson slipped this provision into tax law in 1954 to silence his political enemies, America had a rich tradition of political involvement by churches and pastors going back to Colonial days. It has been historically recognized that churches are the conscience of any society. They have a responsibility to speak to moral issues in the public square, and even support or oppose candidates who represent a clear moral or immoral agenda. This vital role in American societyand this need for autonomy from the heavy hand of taxationwas recognized by our founders onward.
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2010/05/pastors-urged-to-endorse-candidates/
Well of it was true in the colonial days than why not? I guess I need a 14 year old wife now too. And some... Forces employees...
Churches "were" the conscience of society and used to be much more important. That history doesn't mean they get to control or greatly influence politics.
Well of it was true in the colonial days than why not? I guess I need a 14 year old wife now too. And some... Forces employees...
Churches "were" the conscience of society and used to be much more important. That history doesn't mean they get to control or greatly influence politics.
Which lasted until 1954 (well past the colonial days..it started with the colonial days). Johnson did not evolve or anything about this he just wanted to silence his political opponents.
-
The part about preserving the non-profit tax status is what, according to my understanding
will bring this EO down.
You're talking about the Johnson Amendment, which is in the tax code and affects all non-taxable
organizations. In this case, it forbids church's to take tax-free donations and then use that money
to support a politician or political organization. Reversing the Johnson Amendment cannot be
accomplished by the whims of the president---it will take an act of Congress. That will not be as
easy as it sounds because not all Republicans will be on board with reversing this amendment.
Something to do with "the law of unintended consequences", because it doesn't just affect churches
but all non-taxable organizations.
Until Senator Lyndon Johnson slipped this provision into tax law in 1954 to silence his political enemies, America had a rich tradition of political involvement by churches and pastors going back to Colonial days. It has been historically recognized that churches are the conscience of any society. They have a responsibility to speak to moral issues in the public square, and even support or oppose candidates who represent a clear moral or immoral agenda. This vital role in American society–and this need for autonomy from the heavy hand of taxation–was recognized by our founders onward.
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2010/05/pastors-urged-to-endorse-candidates/
Until Senator Lyndon Johnson slipped this provision into tax law in 1954 to silence his political enemies, America had a rich tradition of political involvement by churches and pastors going back to Colonial days. It has been historically recognized that churches are the conscience of any society. They have a responsibility to speak to moral issues in the public square, and even support or oppose candidates who represent a clear moral or immoral agenda. This vital role in American society–and this need for autonomy from the heavy hand of taxation–was recognized by our founders onward.
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2010/05/pastors-urged-to-endorse-candidates/
I think we may have found a statement more absurd than Cal's "gays can't get married because its science".
The day I let religious institutions that condoned slavery, promoted racial segregation, collaborated with Nazis, and that actively shields kid-fucking priests - to name a few - dictate to me what is morally conscious or not, is the day that I officially quit being a free-thinking human being and put a bullet into my brain.
Don't misunderstand me; the vast majority of religious people are decent people. But Christian religious institutions lost the right to be the arbiters of what is moral a long time ago.
-
Well of it was true in the colonial days than why not? I guess I need a 14 year old wife now too. And some... Forces employees...
Churches "were" the conscience of society and used to be much more important. That history doesn't mean they get to control or greatly influence politics.
Which lasted until 1954 (well past the colonial days..it started with the colonial days). Johnson did not evolve or anything about this he just wanted to silence his political opponents.
Which lasted until 1954 (well past the colonial days..it started with the colonial days). Johnson did not evolve or anything about this he just wanted to silence his political opponents.
So what other old laws do you want to bring back from the good old days? Segregation? Marital rape?
-
"If you gave [Jerry] Falwell an enema he could be buried in a matchbox". - Christopher Hitchens, 2007.
-
The part about preserving the non-profit tax status is what, according to my understanding
will bring this EO down.
You're talking about the Johnson Amendment, which is in the tax code and affects all non-taxable
organizations. In this case, it forbids church's to take tax-free donations and then use that money
to support a politician or political organization. Reversing the Johnson Amendment cannot be
accomplished by the whims of the president---it will take an act of Congress. That will not be as
easy as it sounds because not all Republicans will be on board with reversing this amendment.
Something to do with "the law of unintended consequences", because it doesn't just affect churches
but all non-taxable organizations.
Until Senator Lyndon Johnson slipped this provision into tax law in 1954 to silence his political enemies, America had a rich tradition of political involvement by churches and pastors going back to Colonial days. It has been historically recognized that churches are the conscience of any society. They have a responsibility to speak to moral issues in the public square, and even support or oppose candidates who represent a clear moral or immoral agenda. This vital role in American society–and this need for autonomy from the heavy hand of taxation–was recognized by our founders onward.
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2010/05/pastors-urged-to-endorse-candidates/
Until Senator Lyndon Johnson slipped this provision into tax law in 1954 to silence his political enemies, America had a rich tradition of political involvement by churches and pastors going back to Colonial days. It has been historically recognized that churches are the conscience of any society. They have a responsibility to speak to moral issues in the public square, and even support or oppose candidates who represent a clear moral or immoral agenda. This vital role in American society–and this need for autonomy from the heavy hand of taxation–was recognized by our founders onward.
http://www.dakotavoice.com/2010/05/pastors-urged-to-endorse-candidates/
You're absolutely right. Johnson introduced the amendment as a political bludgeon. He wanted to silence one of his opponents
who kept calling him a communist.
I would question the statement that churches are the conscience of society, given the rising number of people who list their religion as 'none'.
-
It's funny how the bible never comes out when it's time to feed the poor, welcome the homeless and love your neighbours, but if gay people ask you to bake a cake all of a sudden it's super relevant.
And for refusing to bake a cake over religious beliefs cost the Christian baker his business and having to pay over 100 thousand dollars. I would say that makes this issue of religious rights very relevant.
And for refusing to bake a cake over religious beliefs cost the Christian baker his business and having to pay over 100 thousand dollars. I would say that makes this issue of religious rights very relevant.
On this we are in full agreement. I'll never understand the logic of taking someone who is repulsed by your existence
to court in order to force them to bake you a cake, as well as the business being forced to pay thousands of dollars
for---what? Hurt feelings?
By the same token, I don't understand the argument that baking a cake for a gay couple is forcing you to
participate in the wedding. Unless you're being forced to attend the wedding and cut the cake and dance with
the groom, then you're just being paid to bake a fucking cake. Take the money and live well.
-
And for refusing to bake a cake over religious beliefs cost the Christian baker his business and having to pay over 100 thousand dollars. I would say that makes this issue of religious rights very relevant.
On this we are in full agreement. I'll never understand the logic of taking someone who is repulsed by your existence
to court in order to force them to bake you a cake, as well as the business being forced to pay thousands of dollars
for---what? Hurt feelings?
By the same token, I don't understand the argument that baking a cake for a gay couple is forcing you to
participate in the wedding. Unless you're being forced to attend the wedding and cut the cake and dance with
the groom, then you're just being paid to bake a fucking cake. Take the money and live well.
On this we are in full agreement. I'll never understand the logic of taking someone who is repulsed by your existence
to court in order to force them to bake you a cake, as well as the business being forced to pay thousands of dollars
for---what? Hurt feelings?
By the same token, I don't understand the argument that baking a cake for a gay couple is forcing you to
participate in the wedding. Unless you're being forced to attend the wedding and cut the cake and dance with
the groom, then you're just being paid to bake a fucking cake. Take the money and live well.
See now that's pretty sound thinking. Yet you still get people on both sides playing the victim and declaring the other side a monster.
-
Double standard? You bet:Bakeries Can Refuse Bible Verses But Not Gay Weddings, Colorado DecidesA bakery in Colorado will not be punished for refusing to bake a cake requested by a Christian activist that included quotes from the Bible denouncing homosexuality.
Azucar Bakery in Denver was found not guilty of discrimination by the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Regulatory Agencies when it refused to make a cake requested by Christian activist Bill Jack.
In comments sent to The Christian Post on Sunday, Jack denounced the decision by the Civil Rights Division and its use of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.
"Colorado prosecuted Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop for bringing his Christian faith to bear in his decision not to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, yet business owners who decide to refuse service to a Christian wanting Bible verses on cakes are exonerated by the state," stated Jack.
Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/bakeries-can-refuse-bible-verses-but-not-gay-weddings-colorado-decides-136971/#JBxlU4QAdmCuCFcq.99 -
Just wait till atheist and satanic organizations start using their tax exempt status's and getting all kinds of politcsl with it. Its gonna be fun to watch
It will be entertaining the first time any non Christian group uses this law to do something that pisses Christians off.
It will be entertaining the first time any non Christian group uses this law to do something that pisses Christians off.
The word "entertaining" dies not begin to encompass the level of gleeful giddiness i will exp if something like that goes down. I might have to fap to it is what im saying
-
It will be entertaining the first time any non Christian group uses this law to do something that pisses Christians off.
The word "entertaining" dies not begin to encompass the level of gleeful giddiness i will exp if something like that goes down. I might have to fap to it is what im saying
The word "entertaining" dies not begin to encompass the level of gleeful giddiness i will exp if something like that goes down. I might have to fap to it is what im saying
We'll see. We've already seen the consequences of the loss of rights of religious beliefs.
-
Double standard? You bet:Bakeries Can Refuse Bible Verses But Not Gay Weddings, Colorado DecidesA bakery in Colorado will not be punished for refusing to bake a cake requested by a Christian activist that included quotes from the Bible denouncing homosexuality.
Azucar Bakery in Denver was found not guilty of discrimination by the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Regulatory Agencies when it refused to make a cake requested by Christian activist Bill Jack.
In comments sent to The Christian Post on Sunday, Jack denounced the decision by the Civil Rights Division and its use of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.
"Colorado prosecuted Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop for bringing his Christian faith to bear in his decision not to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, yet business owners who decide to refuse service to a Christian wanting Bible verses on cakes are exonerated by the state," stated Jack.
Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/bakeries-can-refuse-bible-verses-but-not-gay-weddings-colorado-decides-136971/#JBxlU4QAdmCuCFcq.99Obf, ur missing the full story...which isnt surprising given whete you guys go for ur news. That christian activist wanted more than bible verses on his cake. Early on he even admitted to it, now he changed his story. The baker even tried to accomodate him saying ill put bible shit on there but that other stuff you can put on urself and provided him the frosting tubes to do it. So per usual rhe cases are not equivalent.
Let me be clear im not all that keen to tell bakers what to do, but i do see the point that where does it end? Should restaurants or grocery stores or pharmacies be allowed deny service to gay people? I promise yoy the first time some muslim pharmacist decides this cross wearing customer doesnt get his/her meds....there will be hell.
Double standard? You bet:
Bakeries Can Refuse Bible Verses But Not Gay Weddings, Colorado Decides
A bakery in Colorado will not be punished for refusing to bake a cake requested by a Christian activist that included quotes from the Bible denouncing homosexuality.
Azucar Bakery in Denver was found not guilty of discrimination by the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Regulatory Agencies when it refused to make a cake requested by Christian activist Bill Jack.
In comments sent to The Christian Post on Sunday, Jack denounced the decision by the Civil Rights Division and its use of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.
"Colorado prosecuted Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop for bringing his Christian faith to bear in his decision not to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, yet business owners who decide to refuse service to a Christian wanting Bible verses on cakes are exonerated by the state," stated Jack.
-
Double standard? You bet:Bakeries Can Refuse Bible Verses But Not Gay Weddings, Colorado DecidesA bakery in Colorado will not be punished for refusing to bake a cake requested by a Christian activist that included quotes from the Bible denouncing homosexuality.
Azucar Bakery in Denver was found not guilty of discrimination by the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Regulatory Agencies when it refused to make a cake requested by Christian activist Bill Jack.
In comments sent to The Christian Post on Sunday, Jack denounced the decision by the Civil Rights Division and its use of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.
"Colorado prosecuted Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop for bringing his Christian faith to bear in his decision not to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, yet business owners who decide to refuse service to a Christian wanting Bible verses on cakes are exonerated by the state," stated Jack.
Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/bakeries-can-refuse-bible-verses-but-not-gay-weddings-colorado-decides-136971/#JBxlU4QAdmCuCFcq.99Double standard? You bet:Sexuality: not a choice
Religion: a choice
That's the distinction being made. Frankly anyone who refuses to write stuff on a cake (I'm not talking about baking a penis shaped cake or whatever might 'offend') is an idiot, and anyone who gets bent out of shape about someone not wanting to write stuff they disagree with on a cake is just as much of an idiot. I'm not going to demand a bakery in Ann Arbor write 'Go Buckeyes! Michigan sucks!' or whatever on a cake, but they also should just do it because it's just a fucking cake. Also applies to t-shirts, posters, whatever. *maybe* not big banners to be used in demonstrations.
-
Double standard? You bet:
Sexuality: not a choice
Religion: a choice
That's the distinction being made. Frankly anyone who refuses to write stuff on a cake (I'm not talking about baking a penis shaped cake or whatever might 'offend') is an idiot, and anyone who gets bent out of shape about someone not wanting to write stuff they disagree with on a cake is just as much of an idiot. I'm not going to demand a bakery in Ann Arbor write 'Go Buckeyes! Michigan sucks!' or whatever on a cake, but they also should just do it because it's just a fucking cake. Also applies to t-shirts, posters, whatever. *maybe* not big banners to be used in demonstrations.
Sexuality: not a choice
Religion: a choice
That's the distinction being made. Frankly anyone who refuses to write stuff on a cake (I'm not talking about baking a penis shaped cake or whatever might 'offend') is an idiot, and anyone who gets bent out of shape about someone not wanting to write stuff they disagree with on a cake is just as much of an idiot. I'm not going to demand a bakery in Ann Arbor write 'Go Buckeyes! Michigan sucks!' or whatever on a cake, but they also should just do it because it's just a fucking cake. Also applies to t-shirts, posters, whatever. *maybe* not big banners to be used in demonstrations.
Homosexuality is a choice.
If you are a black owner of a bakery and you are offended a customer wants you to bake a cake for the KKK party then he should have the right to refuse. It is a matter of conscience.
-
acting out is always a choice. Society defining "Real Marriage" is a choice.
a gay couple going to a Christian bakery is a choice.
pandering to sick freaks, the gays, and illegals and Muslims is a choice...of obamao and the dems.
trying to deny Christians the freedom of worship...is a choice.
-
Sexuality: not a choice
Religion: a choice
That's the distinction being made. Frankly anyone who refuses to write stuff on a cake (I'm not talking about baking a penis shaped cake or whatever might 'offend') is an idiot, and anyone who gets bent out of shape about someone not wanting to write stuff they disagree with on a cake is just as much of an idiot. I'm not going to demand a bakery in Ann Arbor write 'Go Buckeyes! Michigan sucks!' or whatever on a cake, but they also should just do it because it's just a fucking cake. Also applies to t-shirts, posters, whatever. *maybe* not big banners to be used in demonstrations.
Homosexuality is a choice.
If you are a black owner of a bakery and you are offended a customer wants you to bake a cake for the KKK party then he should have the right to refuse. It is a matter of conscience.
Homosexuality is a choice.
If you are a black owner of a bakery and you are offended a customer wants you to bake a cake for the KKK party then he should have the right to refuse. It is a matter of conscience.
unfortunately in rational debate evidence with sound conclusions usually wins debates. In which case there is far more credible evidence being gay is NOT a choice.
-
gays setting up Christians to be slapped with a radical gov lawsuit is a choice.
-
Homosexuality is a choice.
If you are a black owner of a bakery and you are offended a customer wants you to bake a cake for the KKK party then he should have the right to refuse. It is a matter of conscience.
unfortunately in rational debate evidence with sound conclusions usually wins debates. In which case there is far more credible evidence being gay is NOT a choice.
unfortunately in rational debate evidence with sound conclusions usually wins debates. In which case there is far more credible evidence being gay is NOT a choice.
In rational debate on this forum I am sure I can match you study for study about homosexuality being a choice.
-
Despite what you may have read, there's no 'gay gene' | Genetic ...
Oct 12, 2015 - Amid the ever-present “homosexuality is a choice” chants of the anti-gay community, it is, naturally, tempting to claim that this study is concrete proof that sexual orientation is entirely genetic.
-
Gay people not 'born that way,' sexual orientation not fixed – US study ...
https://www.rt.com/news/356848-study-sexual-orientation-fixed/Aug 23, 2016 - The notion that sexual orientation is predetermined by biology is an important part of the current LGBT discourse. If a person has no choice over ...
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login