The State Vs. Religious Freedom.

[Loran Blood]

The Ocean Grove Church dishonored its agreement with the State and the People,

And what "contract" was that again? I noticed you quite deftly avoided articulating a cogent argument regarding this alleged "contract" with LeSellers. Could you be more forthcoming here? I suspect it to be a mythic construct of some sort, and one powerful enough to supersede the Constitution, so it must be something we could sink our teeth into.

the Church got what it deserved for not keeping its end of the bargain.

When did it bargain with either the state or anyone else to marry homosexuals (or BDSM fetishists, or transsexuals, or nudists) on its property?

When two people agreement a quid pro quo a contract of sorts have been formed, Ocean Grove did not want to honor that contract but wanted to retain the benefits of the contract.....why so many here support the dishonoring of contracts is astounding. Didn't Jesus say something about all one dealings being "yah, yah, or nay nay". Ocean Grove did not want to keep its word, and Ocean Grove was punished, so please stop with the strawman presentations.

Its quite obvious to me at this point that you don't have any legitimate argument at all for eviscerating the unalienable rights of the majority as stipulated in the Constitution for tiny special interest minorities who wish to impose their worldview on others and make others complicit in their lifestyle choices. That doesn't surprise me, as I don't see any cogent aregument here either.

Edited July 27, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yes, they are.

Ha, good catch and a perfect example for this thread. This is almost too ironic.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Based on the black letter written law, can you provide reasonable examples of "protected class" setting up some group more equal than others? Can you identify a person that is not protected?

I think affirmative action is one such example.

We could also include the NAACP. I think the very nature of that organization is racist but nothing is ever said or done. The interesting thing is that I support the rights of that group though I strongly disagree with it.

This is almost too rich. I doubt you take issue with the NAACP. It is discriminatory to the core. I, as a white person, could never get any such help from them. They are never sued in law suites for their discrimination, they are protected. They discriminate based on race. Why is it ok for them to do it but not the guy that cuts hair or runs the tire shop?

Edited July 27, 2011 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Loran Blood]

You need to take up your objections with the democratically elected Vermont legislature. That is the "they" you are referring to. If its important to you that business owners and employers are be free to openly discriminate agaisnt gay employees and gay couples, then perhaps its best that you not move to a state where such discrimination is considered odious and offensive.

You miss the point completely, lost as you appear to be in your individual agenda. I see no way, constitutionally, morally, or otherwise ethically, a legitimate government can force me into personal coincidence with others with whom I wish to share no space nor economic or any other kind of transaction, at least not on my property. In government space, that may be another thing entirely. Believe me, I think the civil rights legislation of the sixties was, overall, a very good thing, but having said that, not all of it was either judicious or clear-headed. Some of it led to egregious and invasive violations of individual rights, such as forced busing, forced associations on private property, and, worst of all, a longstanding racial grievance and reparative discrimination industry that has, within itself, no logical or rational limit.

Interestingly, at an emotional level, I've always liked the idea of southern racists and rednecks not being able to deny a black American service in his restaurant, or making him sit in a segrageted part of the building on pain of a stiff fine or worse. I still like the idea, on that level. It was a long time in coming. On the other hand, I've never been able to reconcile this, intellectually or morally, with the Constitution or the classical liberal ideas of unalienable rights, the rule of law, and equality under the law at its base.

Edited July 27, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Interestingly, at an emotional level, I've always liked the idea of southern racists and rednecks not being able to deny a black American service in his restaurant, or making him sit in a segrageted part of the building on pain of a stiff fine or worse. I still like the idea, on that level. It was a long time in coming. On the other hand, I've never been able to reconcile this, intellectually or morally, with the Constitution or the classical liberal ideas of unalienable rights, the rule of law, and equality under the law at its base.

I am in the same boat as you. I actually am really torn on this subject.

[LeSellers]

The Ocean Grove Church dishonored its agreement with the State and the People, the Church got what it deserved for not keeping its end of the bargain. When two people agreement a quid pro quo a contract of sorts have been formed, Ocean Grove did not want to honor that contract but wanted to retain the benefits of the contract.

What contract? There was no contract. There was no agreement.

Where was the "two people agreement a quid pro quo a contract of sorts have been formed" (whatever that actually means, I'm going with my interpretation). Where was the "quid pro quo"?

What benefits did the church derive from this illusory contract?

why so many here support the dishonoring of contracts is astounding.

No one here has said anything about abrogating the terms of a contract. We are disputing that there was a contract in the first place.

Didn't Jesus say something about all one dealings being "yah, yah, or nay nay".

Yes, He did. And government is certainly guilty of breaking that commandment.

Ocean Grove did not want to keep its word, and Ocean Grove was punished, so please stop with the strawman presentations.

What straw man? No one has shown there was a contract at all. No one has shown that Ocean Grove Church broke its word.

Based on the black letter written law, can you provide reasonable examples of "protected class" setting up some group more equal than others? Can you identify a person that is not protected?

If all are protected, then what's the use of the law?

But yes, it is easy to show that protected classes have greater rights than the rest of us. If two people are equally qualified for a job, the job will go the the protected class, rather than the other, because it makes the state happy. if the state is happy, there aren't big men with shiny hats, in fancy hats, carrying guns pounding on the door.

When was the last time you heard of a white, Christian man getting the state to force a company to hire him in preference to the black woman they decided to hire, hoping to keep the state happy?

Lehi

Edited July 27, 2011 by LeSellers

[Loran Blood]

Ha, good catch and a perfect example for this thread. This is almost too ironic.

Well you know its like 1984. Poor Winston Smith. Big Brother makes him get up early every morning (early to bed, early to rise and all that) and do his exercises. The state needs him to be healthy, bright eyed and bushy tailed, you know. They have a compelling interest in doing so. After all, the longer you live and the healthier you are, the greater your service to the state will be.

The funny thing is, when you start looking at all the things the state has a potential compelling interest in seeing we do, avoid, or are protected from, the list very quickly begins to get fascinatingly and alarmingly long...

Edited July 27, 2011 by Loran Blood

[frankenstein]

Lehi,

You know what benefit the Ocean Grove Church received from the State of New Jersey.

you know what obligation the Ocean Grove had to the People and the State.

you know that Ocean Grove refused to honors its part of the agreement.

please stop with your willful and deliberate ignorance on this matter.

Your denial of the what happened in Ocean Grove case is documented in long past and locked thread(s) of this board.

Edited July 27, 2011 by frankenstein

[LeSellers]

What is the harm in making black sit in the back of the bus, or drink from a separate fountain?

Your (rhetorical) question, you answer it.

Lehi

[Loran Blood]

CO2 is a pollutant, you know.

Soon, your weed eater is going to have a quota of emissions beyond which you must turn it off or face sanction. Grilling hotdogs and burgers on the hibachi only on alternate Thursdays.

This kind of thinking just has no rational, logical limit, once its allowed to gain legitimacy. SSM is no different, at its base, and requires a state with enough arbitrary, unaccountable power to get away with such nonsense combined with a people intellectually and morally neutered enough to allow such abuses.

The Nephites went through all of this long ago. We are moving through it now, on our way toward the "great and terrible day."

[LeSellers]

Lehi, please stop with your willful and deliberate ignorance.

You know what benefit the Ocean Grove Church received from the State of New Jersey.

you know what obligation the Ocean Grove had to the People and the State.

you know that Ocean Grove refused to honors its part of the agreement.

No, I do not. Fill me in.

Here's your chance to educate me.

Lehi

[Loran Blood]

Lehi, please stop with your willful and deliberate ignorance.

You know what benefit the Ocean Grove Church received from the State of New Jersey.

you know what obligation the Ocean Grove had to the People and the State.

you know that Ocean Grove refused to honors its part of the agreement.

Could you just humor us for a minute and articulate it in detail, and give it a sound philosophical basis?

[frankenstein]

Could you just humor us for a minute and articulate it in detail, and give it a sound philosophical basis?

No, I do not. Fill me in.

Here's your chance to educate me.

Lehi

Both of you know what happened and neither of you are willing to be honest it. I know that you, Lehi, have denied the truth of the Ocean Grove case via a libertarian spin - as I said you did this quite some time ago on this board (i say 10months back or more). You both can start reading the above link and return with your denials and spin, page 4 seems a good starting point, but since it is only 12 pages you might as well start from the beginning.

What I find most interesting about the Ocean Grove case is that never has anyone on this board - other than myself, Jaybear and perhaps California Boy - ever presented the full facts without spin or bias. The truth of Ocean Grove is inconvenient for those of the anti-gay agenda, thus the necessity for the spin machines to turn at spewing out dizzying denials and obfuscation.

Edited July 27, 2011 by frankenstein

[Jaybear]

You miss the point completely, lost as you appear to be in your individual agenda. I see no way, constitutionally, morally, or otherwise ethically, a legitimate government can force me into personal coincidence with others with whom I wish to share no space nor economic or any other kind of transaction, at least not on my property.

No one has or can force you to do any of those things. If however, you CHOOSE on your own volition to move to Vermont and open an Inn, you will have to accommodate gay couples that wish to stay at your Inn, and handicapped people, and interracial couples, and Jews. You will also have to meet building codes, pay employee minimum wages, post your rates on the doors, have workers compensation, pay taxes, etc. etc. etc.

You can consider all these rules to be a cost of doing business.

Believe me, I think the civil rights legislation of the sixties was, overall, a very good thing, but having said that, not all of it was either judicious or clear-headed. Some of it led to egregious and invasive violations of individual rights, such as forced busing, forced associations on private property, and, worst of all, a longstanding racial grievance and reparative discrimination industry that has, within itself, no logical or rational limit.

The only constitutional question raised by the civil rights act was whether the feds had the authority under the ICC to regulate local businesses.

The "freedom of association" nonsense spouted in this thread is not a real issue.

[Pahoran]

Lehi,

You know what benefit the Ocean Grove Church received from the State of New Jersey.

I don't. Care to fill me in?

you know what obligation the Ocean Grove had to the People and the State.

I don't. Care to fill me in?

you know that Ocean Grove refused to honors its part of the agreement.

I don't. Care to fill me in?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

No one has or can force you to do any of those things. If however, you CHOOSE on your own volition to move to Vermont and open an Inn, you will have to accommodate gay couples that wish to stay at your Inn, and handicapped people, and interracial couples, and Jews. You will also have to meet building codes, pay employee minimum wages, post your rates on the doors, have workers compensation, pay taxes, etc. etc. etc.

Jaybear, you cannot be serious. Well, maybe you can. Are you just trying to ignore the points made? Ok that comment is tongue in cheek.

But the state does force you that is the point. If I choose not to do business with gay people then I am slapped with a fine or sued or shut down. So in essence I am forced at least in a monetary sense.

[frankenstein]

I don't. Care to fill me in?

I don't. Care to fill me in?

I don't. Care to fill me in?

Regards,

Pahoran

go find out for yourself that way when you also return with denial and spin we all know that you have to deny the truth of the matter. and I dare say, you have read the truth of the matter on this board as well. Google can be your friend, try searching for New Jersey State Attorney General Ocean Grove

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

go find out for yourself that way when you also return with denial and spin we all know that you have to deny the truth of the matter. and I dare say, you have read the truth of the matter on this board as well. Google can be your friend, try searching for New Jersey State Attorney General Ocean Grove

Why don't you spell out the relevant portions.

[frankenstein]

Why don't you spell out the relevant portions.

why dont you read my posts on the matter and read the links, I have stated the truth of what happened. The Ocean Grove Church has been discussed numerous times on this board.

[Pahoran]

Both of you know what happened and neither of you are willing to be honest it.

So in your opinion, the only way to "be honest it" [sic] is to agree with the immoralist spin.

Got it.

I know that you, Lehi, have denied the truth of the Ocean Grove case via a libertarian spin - as I said you did this quite some time ago on this board (i say 10months back or more). You both can start reading the above link and return with your denials and spin, page 4 seems a good starting point, but since it is only 12 pages you might as well start from the beginning.

Okay, I've read it.

I see no "benefit the Ocean Grove Church received from the State of New Jersey." Care to point it out to me?

I see no "obligation the Ocean Grove had to the People and the State." Care to point it out to me?

I see no "agreement" that "Ocean Grove refused to honors" [sic.] Care to point it out to me?

What I find most interesting about the Ocean Grove case is that never has anyone on this board - other than myself, Jaybear and perhaps California Boy - ever presented the full facts without spin or bias. The truth of Ocean Grove is inconvenient for those of the anti-gay agenda, thus the necessity for the spin machines to turn at spewing out dizzying denials and obfuscation.

Yes, without a doubt, you, Jaybear and California Boy are the most unbiased purveyors of "facts" this forum has ever seen. Especially regarding homosexual issues.

Do you really not see how flamingly partisan you are on this issue? Because I promise you that everyone else does.

Regards,

Pahoran

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

I never said you personally advocated anything less than the peaceful, legal change. But there are plenty that do.

Sure the law in general is to be supported. Individual laws can and do get changed all the time. The functioning any society is based upon the obeying of law. The very definition of anarchy is the absence of law. I'm not suggesting the blindly following of the law. In our republic if you really disagree with a law there are legitimate means for changing that law.

When the Saints were being civilly disobedient it came back to bite them. BIG TIME. Resulting in our OD1. I don't agree with the decisions of that Congress, but they were upheld by the Supreme Court of the US. While I don't see the LDS arguing for the earthly return of polygamy. We would be within our legal rights to push for such a change, at least in the US, and probably many other countries.

I believe that one can argure whether the Civil Rights Acts limited anyones rights. You still have the right to cut anyones hair you choose, if they agree to it. But if you go into the public square, there are laws which you must follow. Just as when you drive a vehicle on public roads/highways there are laws governing your acts. If you choose not to obey them. Either the laws of physics will stop you, or our legal system will.

While I believe discrimination on the basis or race, color, creed, religion... is silly, and counterproductive. You can discriminate to your hearts content in your personal life. No one is argueing that. What you are legally barred from doing is going into the public square and enforcing your beliefs.

No, that is not a logical conclusion because it is counter the right not to marry to anyone in general, and specifically to the right to not marry a certain individual. Even in the Celestial Kingdom no one is going to be forced to marry any one they don't want to. But that is a religious argument, and not a legel one.

That is a false premise. I've never argued that everyone is equal in some absolutist sense of the word. I have argued that people should be equal before the law. That the same standard of law should apply to me that is applied to you.

Yes, and no. Yes the tire changer, if he/she is in the public square putting out that he/she changes tires. Her can refuse me service. It could be because I have hazel eyes and he/she doesn't like people who have hazel eyes. However if I were a Jew and he did not like Jews. Then he is opening himself to legal action if he/she denied me service.

That is what I said. Let me try other words. You do have the right to swing your arm any way you want. However that right to swing your arm any way you choose ends at my nose.

BTW. Harm is not the only standard by which a right is measured. Swinging your arm under certain cercumstances is considered assault, and it is battery to connect. Consider the individual who is rightfully convicted on assault with a deadly weapon, even though the victim lives.

Again no rights are absolute. They are conditional. You have the right to vote in this country. But you must be a US citizen, the individual states also have residency requirements for local elections, and have reached the age of 18 before you may legally do so. You have the right to marry, but in most states you must be 18 before you may legally do so, without parental permission, even then there are minimum age requirements. You have the legal right to assemble, but it must be peacefully. The list is endless of rights that are conditional. I see the US as trying(not always successfully) to limit the limiting conditions for as many people as possible.

If you were to yell FIRE in a crowded theater, and there was not a fire. You could/would be subject to the laws of the state. If people despirit to get out didn't trample you first. Just as you have the right to jump off of a high cliff without a parachute. The laws of physics result in a experience that is not pleasant.

I always have recourse. I may choose to select one option over another, or may choose not to respond at all. But the response is still mine. If you violate the laws of the state then the state is a aggrieved party. The state has a larger array of options than any one individual has, and they too may choose to do nothing at all. IE. If you punched me in the nose I don't have the legal power to put you in jail.

Except after the due process of law. The state has every right and a responsiblity to punish crime, to make whole as far as possible. I am disabled because of the actions of two punks. NOTHING I, the state, and modern medicine can do will make me not disabled. I and they CAN NOT make me whole. I must depend on a glorious Resurrection, but that is a religious arguement and not a legal one.

With any type of insurance you are claiming that you will have a loss. It is the insurance company that is claiming that you will not. They base their rates on the chances that any large group will in fact not have a loss. In the case of driving the State of California you may post a surity bond that is equal to the value of the minimal requirements of regular liability insurance.

No it is not slavery, after the due process of law. Slaves do not have the legal right to change their enslavement. It is not slavery to willingly sumbit yourself to the requirements of the law. Especially if we retain the right to change those laws at will. It is a sad reality of this world that some will not willingly submit, but must be forced to comply. IE. It is a violation of law to exceed the posted speed limit. You make yourself subject to law if you violate that law. After the due process of law the state may force you to pay the fine(penalty) for that violation. Refuse and the state has the option of forcing you into jail. Refuse to go to jail, and even more dire consequences can result.

Come to think of it ALL law is based on force. Violate the laws of God, and there is a penalty to be paid, thankfully Jesus has paid that penalty if we repent, but the law remains in effect. Try to violate the laws of physics and all types of "fun" results.

My son is here so gotta go.

Edited July 27, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[frankenstein]

Got it.

Okay, I've read it.

I see no "benefit the Ocean Grove Church received from the State of New Jersey." Care to point it out to me?

I see no "obligation the Ocean Grove had to the People and the State." Care to point it out to me?

I see no "agreement" that "Ocean Grove refused to honors" [sic.] Care to point it out to me?

Yes, without a doubt, you, Jaybear and California Boy are the most unbiased purveyors of "facts" this forum has ever seen. Especially regarding homosexual issues.

Do you really not see how flamingly partisan you are on this issue? Because I promise you that everyone else does.

Regards,

Pahoran

Firstly, though I deleted it, I like you label the Attorney General of New Jersey as an immoralist because the AG upheld the law and held a "christian" accountable to the obligation the "christian' had.

Secondly, that you can not see it, would suggest to me that you do not read English, but I know you do, so I am only left you have a necessity and a wanting to be in absolute denial of the benefit Ocean Grove received and the obligation Ocean Grove had for that benefit. I am glad you did not disappoint about being in willful in denial.

Thirdly, read it again, this time read page 4 numerous times.

Edited July 28, 2011 by frankenstein

[Pahoran]

Firstly, though I deleted it, I like you label the Attorney General of New Jersey as an immoralist because the AG upheld the law and held a "christian" accountable to the obligation the "christian' had.

There's no need for the scare quotes. A Christian is a follower of Christ, not someone who connives at gross immorality.

Indeed, I fail to see how anyone seriously attempting to follow Christ could connive at gross immorality. If scare quotes are needed, they should be reserved for the unprincipled immoralists who claim to be "Christians."

Secondly, that you can not see it, would suggest to me that you do not read English, but I know you do, so I am only left you have a necessity and a wanting to be in absolute denial of the benefit Ocean Grove received and the obligation Ocean Grove had for that benefit. I am glad you did not disappoint about being in willful in denial.

Thirdly, read it again, this time read page 4 numerous times.

I do not see a tax exemption as a "benefit" that entails an obligation. A tax is an impost, a demand of payment in exchange for no services; being free of that impost is a good thing, but I fail to see that it involves an "agreement" or "contract." The only condition that seemed to attach to the tax exemption was the provision of public access.

Clearly Ocean Grove did not forsee that their making available some of their property for public access would lead to immoralists being so shameless as to demand the use of that property for the purpose of celebrating their gross immorality. Having not forseen it, they could hardly be held to have an obligation to deliver it, because it was in no sense what they had bargained for.

The uses to which the property of a religious institution can be put could, for the purposes of this discussion, be classified in three ways. These are:

1. Uses that directly advance the institution's mission and aims;
   
2. Uses that are neutral regarding the institution's mission and aims, which could be described as strictly secular; and
   
3. Uses which are directly hostile to the institution, its mission and aims.
   

I believe that anti-religion immoralists are well aware of the distinction between the last two, and delight in deliberately collapsing it. But it is apparent to me that the Methodists were more than willing to allow the public to have access to the pavilion for uses that would fall under category 2, but simply did not contemplate anyone being so swinish as to demand it for uses under category 3. Note that the discontinuation of wedding reservations actually made the pavilion more available to the general public, not less so. So if any obligation to the people of NJ was entailed in the tax exemption, that obligation did not at any time cease to be met.

The message to any religious body opening its property to public access is twofold: (1) read the fine print very very carefully, and (2) never underestimate the sheer effrontery of people without consciences.

I am satisfied that if a religious body can be required to make its property available for uses under category 3, then its religious freedom is seriously trammelled.

I am also satisfied that you, Jaybear, California Boy and the other "gay" apologists here are more than fine with that.

Tell us, Frankenstein: can you contemplate any imposition by an organ of the state on a church in favour of "gays," that you would not enthusiastically endorse?

Because I'd love to know what, if anything, such an imposition might look like.

Regards,

Pahoran

[frankenstein]

Tell us, Frankenstein: can you contemplate any imposition by an organ of the state on a church in favour of "gays," that you would not enthusiastically endorse?

Because I'd love to know what, if anything, such an imposition might look like.

Regards,

Pahoran

I would love to know what "imposition by an organ of the state on a church in favour of 'gays'" that I have "enthusiastically endorsed. Can you name an imposition I have endorsed? What I have ever done is argued for the truth of a matter.

When someone brings up Ocean Grove, New Mexico Photographer, mormons lossing their jobs over prop 8 voting, field trips to lesbian weddings, canada banning the bible I challenge the presentation of the "facts" as provided. Why? Because 9 times out of 10, anyone bringing up those situations has deliberately let out the facts that do not support their agenda. I step in and challenge the presentation and then present the full inconvenient facts.

So, please, tell me what I have enthusiastically endorsed? I have not endorsed anything except that the truth brought to light in given situation. So if you are disparaging me for standing up for the truth, then I am ok with standing up for the truth, why do you seem so opposed to truth being known?

[Pahoran]

I would love to know what "imposition by an organ of the state on a church in favour of 'gays'" that I have "enthusiastically endorsed. Can you name an imposition I have endorsed? What I have ever done is argued for the truth of a matter.

Your idea of the "truth" being that the Methodists at Ocean Grove weren't Christians, but lower-case, scare-quoted "christians," and that their being "held accountable," i.e. punished for the crime of having moral standards, was a good thing.

When someone brings up Ocean Grove, New Mexico Photographer, mormons lossing their jobs over prop 8 voting, field trips to lesbian weddings, canada banning the bible I challenge the presentation of the "facts" as provided. Why? Because 9 times out of 10, anyone bringing up those situations has deliberately let out the facts that do not support their agenda. I step in and challenge the presentation and then present the full inconvenient facts.

And 99 times out of a hundred, your pro-"gay" fellow-partisans do the same, or worse. When have you ever chosen to "step in and challenge the presentation and then present the full inconvenient facts" in those cases?

For instance: when Mormons did indeed lose their jobs in California over their support for Prop 8, and when business owners were harassed by "gay" jihadists -- not for what they did, but for what their employees and/or relatives did in supporting real marriage and defying the gross immorality of the alternative -- did we ever see you admitting that the slimy rationalisations of the "gay" apologists were false?

So, please, tell me what I have enthusiastically endorsed? I have not endorsed anything except that the truth brought to light in given situation.

And oddly enough, every such "given situation" being one that is helpful to your homophilic partisanship.

So if you are disparaging me for standing up for the truth, then I am ok with standing up for the truth, why do you seem so opposed to truth being known?

Do you genuinely believe that a blatantly counterfactual accusation isn't a lie if it's followed by a question mark?

Regards,

Pahoran