Why has Rand not released a statement on the same sex marriage ruling?

[tod evans]

Religious liberty means having the right to practice your religion as you see fit. And I'll give you examples of how the gay rights movement is infringing on the religious liberty rights of Christians.

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/n...stian-bakers-lose-gay-cake-case-31233574.html

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...arriage-ceremony-next-stop-u-s-supreme-court/

I do not agree with forcing anyone, Christian or otherwise, to engage in trade with those who offend them..

So from your post I must assume that you think this homo-marriage decision is going to be used to curtail your religious expression in some way, correct?

The courts have regularly been used to bring the full force of law down on other folks beliefs that they held were religious, often to the outright glee of those who profess to be Christian....

Maybe this quid-pro-quo thing will wake up some people.....

 

[Brett85]

So, you consider his states' rights argument a complete violation of your religious liberty? You can't have religious liberty until you go to every single one of the fifty states and tell lifelong couples that you don't approve of that they aren't married, and deprive them of couples' insurance benefits and the like?

I've taken the pro liberty position that the government shouldn't be involved in licensing marriage. And what difference does Rand's previous states' rights argument make when the Supreme Court just ruled that the states don't have the right to decide this issue?

 

[Brett85]

So from your post I must assume that you think this homo-marriage decision is going to be used to curtail your religious expression in some way, correct?

Yes, government gay marriage is already causing Christians to lose their religious freedom all across America.

 

[acptulsa]

The courts have regularly been used to bring the full force of law down on other folks beliefs that they held were religious, often to the outright glee of those who profess to be Christian....

Maybe this quid-pro-quo thing will wake up some people.....

Doesn't seem to be. Putting the shoe on the other foot doesn't seem to be teaching the other foot how it feels at all. Just seems to be redoubling the other foot's efforts to convince the world, God and itself that it is the righteous foot that can do no wrong.

But hope springs eternal. It could work yet. Then maybe we can put together a bipartisan effort to end government overreach. Provided, of course, that by then the original foot hasn't been having so much fun lording it over the other foot that it forgot how terrible that shoe really is to wear.

'You can only get as much liberty as you give.'--Will Rogers

 

[tod evans]

Yes, government gay marriage is already causing Christians to lose their religious freedom all across America.

How so?

 

[acptulsa]

How so?

I sincerely hope the answer is because the federal government is forcing bakers to bake wedding cakes...

 

[Brett85]

How so?

I already gave you examples.

 

[tod evans]

I already gave you examples.

These were pre-ruling and based on local ordinances..2 specific instances...

Is this seriously "All across America" how religious liberty is being lost?

Sorry dude but this is histrionics, get a grip!

 

[Brett85]

These were pre-ruling and based on local ordinances..2 specific instances...

Is this seriously "All across America" how religious liberty is being lost?

Sorry dude but this is histrionics, get a grip!

Christian business owners were not being sued and fined before gay marriages were recognized by government.

 

[tod evans]

Christian business owners were not being sued and fined before gay marriages were recognized by government.

How, pray tell, is this any different than Walgreens being ordered to let blacks sit at the lunch counter?

 

[Brett85]

How, pray tell, is this any different than Walgreens being ordered to let blacks sit at the lunch counter?

It's far different because that wasn't an example of violating a sincerely held religious belief, while what's happening to Christians is violating the 1st Amendment. That said, I oppose all anti discrimination laws and believe that Walgreens and all other businesses should have the right to freedom of association and private property rights.

 

[Jan2017]

Knee-jerk political reactions are more Obama -style . . .
President's and Commander-In-Chief do not need to have every social issue addressed,
esp. if in this case they haven't yet had an opportunity to read the opinion.
And probably other US Senate and Kentucky work that has to be read and written first (?)
And . . .
ahhh, it is Ex-Governor Muck Hickabee's chance and moment of glory - let him run with his pet issue in the spotlight.

 

[Brett85]

Rand had a "knee jerk reaction" to the Obamacare ruling. He commented on it and criticized it right away without reflecting on it and reading the ruling.

 

[tod evans]

It's far different because that wasn't an example of violating a sincerely held religious belief, while what's happening to Christians is violating the 1st Amendment.

Back in the 60's segregation was a sincerely held religious belief preached in pulpits across the nation by both black and white clergy.

Now you keep saying that this homo decision violates the 1st amendment and then circle around to cakes-n-flowers, could you please try a little harder because I'm not convinced that anyones 1st amendment rights have been breached.

 

[Brett85]

Back in the 60's segregation was a sincerely held religious belief preached in pulpits across the nation by both black and white clergy.

Now you keep saying that this homo decision violates the 1st amendment and then circle around to cakes-n-flowers, could you please try a little harder because I'm not convinced that anyones 1st amendment rights have been breached.

There's nothing in the Bible that says that races should be segregated. In fact, the Bible says the opposite and condemns racism. Anyone who is a racist isn't a Christian. Not being forced to participate in same sex marriage ceremonies is part of following the Christian faith and is covered under the 1st Amendment.

 

[specsaregood]

Some of us are kind of between a rock and a hard place because we can't support Cruz because of his interventionist foreign policy, but unfortunately Rand is far worse than Cruz on this issue, and if Rand keeps it up we won't be able to support him either.

Yes, clearly Randal should step up and call for a secession from the US over this issue and the beginning of a new civil war. Then he could be better than this mythical Cruz character.

 

[Brett85]

Yes, clearly Randal should step up and call for a secession from the US over this issue and the beginning of a new civil war. Then he could be better than this mythical Cruz character.

I wouldn't care if Rand simply released a "moderate statement." He should just release a statement and let people know where he stands and quit being a complete coward. Even Lindsey Graham of all people has made some good points in recent days on the need to preserve religious liberty after this ruling.

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[Brett85]

Say the religious sect holds that "Black skin" is something similar to the "Mark of Cain"; and therefore, association with people with black skin is forbidden by their deity on those grounds. Is it now OK to discriminate against someone with black skin if you hold that tenet as a sincere religious belief?

It would not be "ok" morally but the American people should have the right to freedom of association, private property rights, and religious liberty.

 

[tod evans]

There's nothing in the Bible that says that races should be segregated.

I agree with you. But that doesn't change what was preached back then does it?

Not being forced to participate in same sex marriage ceremonies is part of following the Christian faith and is covered under the 1st Amendment.

Your version of "Christianity".........Don't forget that there are homos who profess to be Christian...

You STILL haven't tied the homo verdict to violations of the 1st, bringing up local decisions in local courts isn't furthering your argument.

As much as I disapprove of homos I really hope the "Moral Majority" are literally forced into a corner by this decision, so much so that as a collective group they're forced to reevaluate some of the positions they've pushed over the years that severely, and adversely, affected so many.

Try to see that the homos have only done what the "Moral Majority" has been doing for decades...

Leaves a bitter taste in your mouth doesn't it?