Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 103
Thanks Tree35Thanks

Thread: The Supreme Court Pushes Back Against the Rising Tide of Anti-Religious Animus

  1. #1
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    56,337
    Thanks
    3106

    From
    Washington state

    The Supreme Court Pushes Back Against the Rising Tide of Anti-Religious Animus

    In a 7-2 decision, the court specifically rebuked the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which had ruled against Phillips when he refused to design a wedding cake for a same-sex “marriage.” As expressed in the majority opinion of Anthony Kennedy, “The Commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion.”
    Ironically, the case was argued by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which the SPLC brazenly labelled a hate group because of its conservative Christian views. As noted earlier today on Forbes.com (unrelated to the SCOTUS ruling), “Alliance Defending Freedom are currently classed as an extremist hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Centre.” Yes, an extremist hate group!
    Today, the Supreme Court took an important step in recognizing that the First Amendment remains in force. It also confirmed what I have said for years, namely, that LGBT activism is the principle threat to freedoms of religion, speech, and conscience in America. May the pushback against this extremism continue.It would take many books to document the rise of anti-religious (specifically, anti-Christian) sentiments in America today. Suffice it to say that much of the anti-Christian bigotry comes from LGBT activists and their allies. They have successfully demonized Christian conservatives who hold to traditional (= biblical values).

    If we don’t speak and act and do what is right today, we’ll have a lot of explaining to do to our kids and grandkids and great grandkids – not to mention to God as well.
    This doesn’t mean that we hate those we differ with. God forbid.
    This doesn’t mean that we harass or persecute those who identify as LGBTQ. Not at all.
    Rather, it means that anything that threatens our most fundamental freedoms – to repeat, our freedoms of conscience and religion and speech – must be resisted.
    The churches must resist it. The media must resist it. The educational system must resist it. Big business must resist it. And the courts must resist it.
    https://townhall.com/columnists/mich...nimus-n2487224

    Christians have been labeled a hate group as shown in this group that stood for Jack Phillips in court. This battle had nothing to do with simply making a cake for a Gay wedding , it had to do with Activist trying to label those that opposed Gay marriage a hate group. Their plan backfired in the ruling on Jack Phillips and the First Amendment helped this case. The real hate group turned out to be the Civil Rights Commission that thought they had the right to punish a Christian for simply being faithful to their religious beliefs. I hope this sends a message to those that have been attacking Christians over this issue. In a Free Country we all have to respect each other's rights.

  2. #2
    RNG
    RNG is offline
    Moderator RNG's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    11,711
    Thanks
    7177

    From
    Between everywhere
    This ruling is very narrow, in the legal sense meaning it is only relevant to this situation and it did not rule on the religious right to not bake the cake, it ruled that the lower court was prejudiced against the defendant, if that's the correct term because of this prejudice. It had nothing to do with religious freedom or the lack thereof.

  3. #3
    Bad Policy Good Politics DebateDrone's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    37,899
    Thanks
    33008

    From
    Border Fence
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    In a 7-2 decision, the court specifically rebuked the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which had ruled against Phillips when he refused to design a wedding cake for a same-sex “marriage.” As expressed in the majority opinion of Anthony Kennedy, “The Commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion.”
    Ironically, the case was argued by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which the SPLC brazenly labelled a hate group because of its conservative Christian views. As noted earlier today on Forbes.com (unrelated to the SCOTUS ruling), “Alliance Defending Freedom are currently classed as an extremist hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Centre.” Yes, an extremist hate group!
    Today, the Supreme Court took an important step in recognizing that the First Amendment remains in force. It also confirmed what I have said for years, namely, that LGBT activism is the principle threat to freedoms of religion, speech, and conscience in America. May the pushback against this extremism continue.It would take many books to document the rise of anti-religious (specifically, anti-Christian) sentiments in America today. Suffice it to say that much of the anti-Christian bigotry comes from LGBT activists and their allies. They have successfully demonized Christian conservatives who hold to traditional (= biblical values).

    If we don’t speak and act and do what is right today, we’ll have a lot of explaining to do to our kids and grandkids and great grandkids – not to mention to God as well.
    This doesn’t mean that we hate those we differ with. God forbid.
    This doesn’t mean that we harass or persecute those who identify as LGBTQ. Not at all.
    Rather, it means that anything that threatens our most fundamental freedoms – to repeat, our freedoms of conscience and religion and speech – must be resisted.
    The churches must resist it. The media must resist it. The educational system must resist it. Big business must resist it. And the courts must resist it.
    https://townhall.com/columnists/mich...nimus-n2487224

    Christians have been labeled a hate group as shown in this group that stood for Jack Phillips in court. This battle had nothing to do with simply making a cake for a Gay wedding , it had to do with Activist trying to label those that opposed Gay marriage a hate group. Their plan backfired in the ruling on Jack Phillips and the First Amendment helped this case. The real hate group turned out to be the Civil Rights Commission that thought they had the right to punish a Christian for simply being faithful to their religious beliefs. I hope this sends a message to those that have been attacking Christians over this issue. In a Free Country we all have to respect each other's rights.
    This thread adds nothing new nor adds no new perspective to the threads already going.

    Mods please merge
    Thanks from Friday13

  4. #4
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    56,337
    Thanks
    3106

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by RNG View Post
    This ruling is very narrow, in the legal sense meaning it is only relevant to this situation and it did not rule on the religious right to not bake the cake, it ruled that the lower court was prejudiced against the defendant, if that's the correct term because of this prejudice. It had nothing to do with religious freedom or the lack thereof.
    The prejudice is what this is about. The government was found in error in the way it treated Phillips. The government cannot punish a protected group to make it possible for another protected group to have rights. The First Amendment states that government shall make no law to prevent free exercise. The Civil Rights Commission was attempting to prevent free exercise and condemn the Christian Baker for practicing it.

  5. #5
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    56,337
    Thanks
    3106

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by DebateDrone View Post
    This thread adds nothing new nor adds no new perspective to the threads already going.

    Mods please merge
    This thread is focusing on how Christians have been treated not only by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission , but Gay activist and their supporters now. This is not about the ruling, but how Christians are being treated

  6. #6
    RNG
    RNG is offline
    Moderator RNG's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    11,711
    Thanks
    7177

    From
    Between everywhere
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    The prejudice is what this is about. The government was found in error in the way it treated Phillips. The government cannot punish a protected group to make it possible for another protected group to have rights. The First Amendment states that government shall make no law to prevent free exercise. The Civil Rights Commission was attempting to prevent free exercise and condemn the Christian Baker for practicing it.
    Why do you try to push this way beyond where it is. It wasn't the government, it was the lower court. It was not a ruling in law, it was a criticism of the court proceedings.
    Thanks from Friday13

  7. #7
    RNG
    RNG is offline
    Moderator RNG's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    11,711
    Thanks
    7177

    From
    Between everywhere
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    This thread is focusing on how Christians have been treated not only by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission , but Gay activist and their supporters now. This is not about the ruling, but how Christians are being treated
    No, in your state of wishful thinking you want to pretend it's how Christians have been treated. But it isn't.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey and Friday13

  8. #8
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    56,337
    Thanks
    3106

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by RNG View Post
    Why do you try to push this way beyond where it is. It wasn't the government, it was the lower court. It was not a ruling in law, it was a criticism of the court proceedings.
    It was a criticism of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission which is the government. Their actions is what caused the SC to rule 7-2. My point is for those (Activist and supporters) that think Government can cause animosity towards Christians for the gain of Activism, think again. The SC rebukes those actions and will again.
    Thanks from orangecat

  9. #9
    Veteran Member aboutenough's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    56,337
    Thanks
    3106

    From
    Washington state
    Quote Originally Posted by RNG View Post
    No, in your state of wishful thinking you want to pretend it's how Christians have been treated. But it isn't.
    I guess you didn't read Kennedy's response, I will post it to refresh your memory. As evidence, Kennedy cited statements by commissioners “that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain.” He coupled those with another statement in which a member said “freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination through history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust.” That kind of claim, the commissioner said, “is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to … hurt others.”

    Kennedy saw this as anti-religious bias in “at least two distinct ways: by describing [religion] as merely rhetorical” and by comparing it to “defenses of slavery and the Holocaust.” These statements infected the judgment below with hostility to religion, he said.https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...keshop/561986/

  10. #10
    Bad Policy Good Politics DebateDrone's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    37,899
    Thanks
    33008

    From
    Border Fence
    Quote Originally Posted by aboutenough View Post
    This thread is focusing on how Christians have been treated not only by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission , but Gay activist and their supporters now. This is not about the ruling, but how Christians are being treated
    That was the whole discussion of the other thread. You're a day late and a dollar short.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey

Page 1 of 11 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 16th May 2016, 11:00 AM
  2. ::: Supreme Court Holds 8-1 for Religious Liberty :::
    By DebateDrone in forum Legal Issues
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 1st June 2015, 07:04 PM
  3. Supreme Court To Hear New Arizona Religious Rights Case
    By timslash in forum Current Events
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12th January 2015, 08:55 AM
  4. Supreme Court To Decide If Religious Groups Can Discriminate Against Gays
    By Mare Tranquillity in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 21st April 2010, 02:11 PM
  5. The rising tide of the Blackwater problem
    By truthmatters in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 26th September 2007, 11:35 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed