Quote:So, then yes. Congress should make rules that restrict the religious beliefs of people.

Hmm. If only their were an amendment baring congress from doing that very thing.

Why don't you try sacrificing a virgin, you dumb stupid fuck?  See how far "religious freedom" gets you with that.

(April 5, 2016 at 12:32 pm)Dripshit Wrote: So... in your opinion, Congress Shall make and enforce laws that apply to the establishment of religion and the free exercise thereof?

Any latitude given to any church to discriminate based on superficial differences (in the special scheme of things, being of a different skin colour or sexual orientation is pretty superficial compared to the over 99.99999999% genetic similarity every human shares) or even laws that explicitly allow it is establishment of religion, shit for brains.

What you are calling the "free exercise of religion" is actually the unfree enactment of single relgion theocracy.

(April 11, 2016 at 6:17 pm)Constable Dorfl Wrote: What you are calling the "free exercise of religion" is actually the unfree enactment of single relgion theocracy.

Yes, but it's the right religion, so that's okay. It's not Theocracy if you're really, really convinced that your God is the right one. Right?

(April 11, 2016 at 9:40 pm)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:

(April 11, 2016 at 6:17 pm)Constable Dorfl Wrote: What you are calling the "free exercise of religion" is actually the unfree enactment of single relgion theocracy.

Yes, but it's the right religion, so that's okay. It's not Theocracy if you're really, really convinced that your God is the right one. Right?

Problem for drippy is, that at some stage he's going to find out that no matter his personal religion the theocracy is going to want to enforce a different one, and he's now up shit creek without a paddle.

Yes, before anyone yells:  ATHEISM IS NOT A RELIGION!!!  The atheist line is rather stupid.  But I like the meme anyway.

(April 8, 2016 at 8:41 am)Drich Wrote:

(April 6, 2016 at 11:52 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: No, they want to stop religious people behaving in a way that is not considered correct for the society now. For example if my religious belief is that I should cut the still beating heart of a human and display the corpse the state be able stop to that. If you agree then you are restricting the religious rights of an Aztec priest, shame on you.

Why did you jump to aztec preists? we are not discussing the azetec preists we are discussing one specific Christian Church. prohibitive or exclusionary practices are apart of ALL Clubs or in this case Churches. One Can't be a mormon and a catholic at the same time. just like in some churches you can not be a unrepentant 'sinner' and a member. To some legalistic 'christians' inter mixing races is a sin. So then the question becomes shall congress pass laws defining what is and is not sin for the church?

Exclusionary practices are not practiced by all clubs. Indeed these practices are deemed illegal over here in the cultured part of the planet.

(April 11, 2016 at 12:16 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:So, then yes. Congress should make rules that restrict the religious beliefs of people.

Hmm. If only their were an amendment baring congress from doing that very thing.

Why don't you try sacrificing a virgin divorce whore, you dumb stupid fuck?  See how far "religious freedom" gets you with that.

Interesting twist, no ?

(April 13, 2016 at 1:21 pm)vorlon13 Wrote:

(April 11, 2016 at 12:16 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Why don't you try sacrificing a virgin divorce whore, you dumb stupid fuck?  See how far "religious freedom" gets you with that.

Interesting twist, no ?

Like this? 

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/23/world/euro...rder-zara/

(April 11, 2016 at 10:26 am)Maelstrom Wrote:

(April 5, 2016 at 9:37 pm)Shining_Finger Wrote: Am I seriously going to argue Devil's Advocate Style?
Then I guess I shall.
Using MarriageEquality.org
I am not kidding.
http://www.marriageequality.org/religious_vs_civil
"Even after civil marriage becomes available to all same-sex couples in all 50 states, religions will retain the right to decide for themselves whether to perform or recognize any marriage, just as they already do. No court decision or legislative enactment can change the basic tenets of religious faith. For example, some religions will not marry someone who has already been divorced, although the person is free to marry civilly. We respect the right of each faith to decide which marriages it will perform and embrace."
Given that this same logic extends to Interracial Marriage, because the Government doesn't have the right to interpret any religious laws.
Like the Lich named Dritch says, you are going to have to take this up with the Government.

And Dritch?
Make better arguments, you just look like an asshole otherwise.

What you posted is in reference to the church having the decision to marry a couple in the church or recognizing the marriage within that church.  What you posted is not in reference to accepting or denying a couple at a place of business outside of stated church, because that would be discrimination and against the law.

Is what you are actually saying actually on topic? 
I thought the original post was about a Church refusing to perform marriage ceremonies for a couple after finding out it was an interracial couple. 
My bad if that is so.

(April 12, 2016 at 10:56 am)drfuzzy Wrote:

Yes, before anyone yells:  ATHEISM IS NOT A RELIGION!!!  The atheist line is rather stupid.  But I like the meme anyway.

Yeah, that line was made simply to appeal to the "Middle Ground" fallacy. 
I have never heard of an Atheist that is anything sort of a Communist refusing to sell a bible.