Moral Law And The Courts

[Ahab]

I will continue to hire good moral people at our business. I fired an employee once because he lied about whether or not he was sleeping with a neice staying with us.

Fortunately the anti-discrimination law didn't get in your way on that one, but what if he openly committed adultery or had sexual relations with any man?   I doubt you would say he was a good moral person, and yet you wouldn't be able to legally disquality him for his immorality.

[california boy]

It's understandable that someone would want to have sexual relations before getting married properly, and it's also understandable that someone would want to be divorced from someone else who abuses or isn't faithful.  Yes those things are still bad, but most of us can at least understand having feelings like that.  Even someone wanting to have sexual relations with someone other than their spouse if they are thinking about being divorced from their current spouse.  But now they're just going too far.

 

I think of it as the last straw in an affront to what most consider to be common decency, as if there's not much more to make matters even worse. Maybe the next step is to remove age restrictions so that even small children can choose to get married.  Or maybe they'll bring back shotgun weddings to make someone marry someone they don't really want to marry. But they wouldn't take it that far, would they???  Just how far will some people go in arguing that something should be legal just because they want to do something to someone else?

Oh brother.  Do you realize you are basically saying that because you are straight you can "understand" straight immorality, but since you are not gay, you feel liike THAT is the moral issue you should go after and "make a stand"  What a hypocrite.  

[california boy]

How many times have i mentioned the pornography issue in my posts??? You may think I am just targeting SSM but I am targeting all of it. SSM is a national travesty to law.

You completely dodged the question.  Yes you have also mentioned ponography, but why just those two moral issues.  Re read my post and try again.

 

And why isn't same sex marriage one of those little things you refer to?  Most estimate the gay population to be around 5%  Only about 10% of the gay population chooses to marry.  That ends up being a minuscule .05% of the population.  Pretty small and unimportant number.  Yet divorce, premarital sex and adultery is more line 70% of the whole population.  Shouldn't those laws be the first ones you want to change?  Let's outlaw divorce for anyone.  Lets imprison anyone having sex outside of marriage.  Lets imprison anyone that commits adultery, or better yet, lets follow Gods law and stone them.  Now where would the country be?  Is that more to your liking?  

 

If you are only wiling to go after gay marriage, then is all you are showing is your own personal prejudice and really have no belief that l

 

 

 

aws should be passed to curb immorality.  You only want to target the minority, the absolutely smallest part of the population.  

[Ahab]

Oh brother.  Do you realize you are basically saying that because you are straight you can "understand" straight immorality, but since you are not gay, you feel liike THAT is the moral issue you should go after and "make a stand"  What a hypocrite.  

The reason I'm not "gay" anymore is because I found out how morally wrong that is. 

 

I can understand being "gay" just fine, but understanding it still doesn't make it right or a good thing even for people who like being that way.

[Bikeemikey]

We are the most free nation on earth and it is because we have the highest standard of moral law in place.

Given that the US is not the "most free nation in earth" it stands to reason that your justification for the false assertion is nonsense.

The US is one of many free nations on earth.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Bikeemikey]

Is the acceptance of others agency and the respect for their right to exercise "consent" a facet of morality?

If understood that a portion of morality is the ability to respect others choices, even when their practice of "consent" is dangerous in our judgement we could all move on from this recurring topic.

If respect for consent is part if morality then our duty is limited to that of warning others, rather than restricting others...

For example: there is a person who is wanting to go cliff diving. You happen to be walking along the path. You know this area is very dangerous for cliff diving and some one died only yesterday at that same spot. What is your moral duty? Is your moral duty to tell them about these dangers? Is your moral duty to wrestle them to the ground to ensure they do not jump?

I intuitively recognize that moral duty, when confronted with behavior by an adult capable of consent, is limited to warning. It seems clear to me that to not inform the cliff jumper of the danger would be immoral, however, neither would it be justifiable physically restrain the jumper if they were insistent on jumping after we had warned them.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[california boy]

The reason I'm not "gay" anymore is because I found out how morally wrong that is. 

 

I can understand being "gay" just fine, but understanding it still doesn't make it right or a good thing even for people who like being that way.

That is not what I am objecting to and you know it.  Please reread what I responded to and explain to me why it is "understandable" for straight immorality to occur and you feel like gay marriage is the moral issue you should go after and "make a stand" .  It is a hypocritical statement.  Immorality is immorality.  If you want to make immorality something the government should pass laws against, then you should be for the government passing laws against ALL immorality.  And that is exactly what my post was pointing out, not whether you were gay or not.

[Rob Osborn]

Fortunately the anti-discrimination law didn't get in your way on that one, but what if he openly committed adultery or had sexual relations with any man?   I doubt you would say he was a good moral person, and yet you wouldn't be able to legally disquality him for his immorality.

I have the right to hire and fire based on honesty or distrust. That honesty or dishonesty is morally based. Private business should have the ability to hire and fire according to what they want morally in an employee. The church does it.

[Rob Osborn]

No. The question is do you create Zion by throwing non conformists in jail? Answer is no, Zion is where the pure in heart live, not the citizens of a police state.

And yet, Satan and followers were kicked out of heaven. Even Zion has laws.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Rob Osborn

[thesometimesaint]

It's understandable that someone would want to have sexual relations before getting married properly, and it's also understandable that someone would want to be divorced from someone else who abuses or isn't faithful.  Yes those things are still bad, but most of us can at least understand having feelings like that.  Even someone wanting to have sexual relations with someone other than their spouse if they are thinking about being divorced from their current spouse.  But now they're just going too far.

 

I think of it as the last straw in an affront to what most consider to be common decency, as if there's not much more to make matters even worse. Maybe the next step is to remove age restrictions so that even small children can choose to get married.  Or maybe they'll bring back shotgun weddings to make someone marry someone they don't really want to marry. But they wouldn't take it that far, would they???  Just how far will some people go in arguing that something should be legal just because they want to do something to someone else?

1. Age restrictions have varied over time. I'm old enough to remember when getting married at 13 was legal in some states. Now it is pretty uniform at 18.

.

2. We're talking about consenting adults. The presence of shotguns kinda removes the consenting part.

[thesometimesaint]

I have the right to hire and fire based on honesty or distrust. That honesty or dishonesty is morally based. Private business should have the ability to hire and fire according to what they want morally in an employee. The church does it.

 

Of course you can hire on the basis of honesty. No one is arguing that. What you can't do in refuse to hire on the basis race, creed, color, religion, or sex. If Approved by Congress it will include sexual orientation/identity. In non-ecclesiastical positions even churches must follow the law with regards to sex.

[Rob Osborn]

Of course you can hire on the basis of honesty. No one is arguing that. What you can't do in refuse to hire on the basis race, creed, color, religion, or sex. If Approved by Congress it will include sexual orientation/identity. In non-ecclesiastical positions even churches must follow the law with regards to sex.

Government needs to be careful on where they draw the line in the sand. I can tell you right now I am not going to hire a manager at my shop who belongs to the church of Satan.

http://www.churchofsatan.com/

Edited November 21, 2013 by Rob Osborn

[Stone holm]

Is the acceptance of others agency and the respect for their right to exercise "consent" a facet of morality?

If understood that a portion of morality is the ability to respect others choices, even when their practice of "consent" is dangerous in our judgement we could all move on from this recurring topic.

If respect for consent is part if morality then our duty is limited to that of warning others, rather than restricting others...

For example: there is a person who is wanting to go cliff diving. You happen to be walking along the path. You know this area is very dangerous for cliff diving and some one died only yesterday at that same spot. What is your moral duty? Is your moral duty to tell them about these dangers? Is your moral duty to wrestle them to the ground to ensure they do not jump?

I intuitively recognize that moral duty, when confronted with behavior by an adult capable of consent, is limited to warning. It seems clear to me that to not inform the cliff jumper of the danger would be immoral, however, neither would it be justifiable physically restrain the jumper if they were insistent on jumping after we had warned them.

The idea that seems to be floating around that Zion is some kind of police state is a bit unnerving as we have so much history to show that a righteous society cannot be created via coercion, that it makes me concerned that this type of thinking could catch hold. I would draw out the parallels more clearly except that would trigger Godwin's law on this thread.

[Rob Osborn]

The idea that seems to be floating around that Zion is some kind of police state is a bit unnerving as we have so much history to show that a righteous society cannot be created via coercion, that it makes me concerned that this type of thinking could catch hold. I would draw out the parallels more clearly except that would trigger Godwin's law on this thread.

I never said Zion is a police state, nothing like that. I am saying that Zion must be established with strict moral law just as is also heaven so ordained with strict moral law. This is about moral law not the lack therof. Zion cannot exist without law. Yes it is true that people will govern themselves and no real police will even be needed in Zion. But, to get from where we are to there we have to have laws and enforce them. I am just not willing to divorce morality from law as has been proposed by some.

[Tsuzuki]

Government needs to be careful on where they draw the line in the sand. I can tell you right now I am not going to hire a manager at my shop who belongs to the church of Satan.

http://www.churchofsatan.com/

That kind of religious discrimination can get you into legal trouble, Also, most of the Satanists I know are good people. I would join myself, but I'm more Luciferian than Satanist.

 

Edit: Maybe I'll join anyway. It could be my fourth official church.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Tsuzuki

[slamarwi]

Tolerance does not connote acceptance or approval. Nor does it in a political sense mean anything goes, normally in today's parlance it is more as set forth in John Stuart Mills "On Liberty" . We tend towards live and let live, and refrain from being busybodies in other persons personal lives.

The lack of objection however does mean "condone." I assert that it is an individuals right and responsibility to express that objection.

[Rivers]

Is the acceptance of others agency and the respect for their right to exercise "consent" a facet of morality?If understood that a portion of morality is the ability to respect others choices, even when their practice of "consent" is dangerous in our judgement we could all move on from this recurring topic.If respect for consent is part if morality then our duty is limited to that of warning others, rather than restricting others...For example: there is a person who is wanting to go cliff diving. You happen to be walking along the path. You know this area is very dangerous for cliff diving and some one died only yesterday at that same spot. What is your moral duty? Is your moral duty to tell them about these dangers? Is your moral duty to wrestle them to the ground to ensure they do not jump? I intuitively recognize that moral duty, when confronted with behavior by an adult capable of consent, is limited to warning. It seems clear to me that to not inform the cliff jumper of the danger would be immoral, however, neither would it be justifiable physically restrain the jumper if they were insistent on jumping after we had warned them.

Would the cliff jumper's decision to jump be considered a civil right?

[slamarwi]

That kind of religious discrimination can get you into legal trouble, Also, most of the Satanists I know are good people. I would join myself, but I'm more Luciferian than Satanist.

 

Edit: Maybe I'll join anyway. It could be my fourth official church.

Yes it is possible, but sacrificing children is more likely to create legal trouble than not adhering to HR policies. 

[Tsuzuki]

Yes it is possible, but sacrificing children is more likely to create legal trouble than not adhering to HR policies. 

I guess it's a good thing Abraham realized that at the last minute.

[Rob Osborn]

That kind of religious discrimination can get you into legal trouble, Also, most of the Satanists I know are good people. I would join myself, but I'm more Luciferian than Satanist.

 

Edit: Maybe I'll join anyway. It could be my fourth official church.

Its one thing to discriminate good but it is something else to not want evil in the workplace to corrupt moral business. I would never knowingly hire a person who sides with Satan or his will. Keep that filth away from our business. I have every right to not hire someone based on their dark and wicked beliefs.

[Tsuzuki]

Its one thing to discriminate good but it is something else to not want evil in the workplace to corrupt moral business. I would never knowingly hire a person who sides with Satan or his will. Keep that filth away from our business. I have every right to not hire someone based on their dark and wicked beliefs.

Have fun in court. In this country we've enshrined freedom of religion.

[Tacenda]

Oh brother. Do you realize you are basically saying that because you are straight you can "understand" straight immorality, but since you are not gay, you feel liike THAT is the moral issue you should go after and "make a stand" What a hypocrite.

Sorry for piping in, but it seems maybe Ahab and others are forgetting that marriage might keep relationships from becoming immoral. Meaning, keep from having several partners, in a faithful marriage that is. Doesn't that atleast show that gays want that?

[Stone holm]

I never said Zion is a police state, nothing like that. I am saying that Zion must be established with strict moral law just as is also heaven so ordained with strict moral law. This is about moral law not the lack therof. Zion cannot exist without law. Yes it is true that people will govern themselves and no real police will even be needed in Zion. But, to get from where we are to there we have to have laws and enforce them. I am just not willing to divorce morality from law as has been proposed by some.

A state which enforces strict moral laws is almost by definition a police state. Probably the best example of such in current times are countries run by the Taliban. And then when they have subjected their own people to such, they have this tendency to try and subject neighboring countries to their same ideal form of life. The primary difference between a government run by the Taliban, and one run by Christian Fundamentalists is that so far the latter has yet to occur.

[Rob Osborn]

Have fun in court. In this country we've enshrined freedom of religion.

And my religious beliefs allow me to not hire a Church of Satan follower. This is no different than the Church refusing to hire a Church of Satan priest to build their temples.

[Rob Osborn]

A state which enforces strict moral laws is almost by definition a police state. Probably the best example of such in current times are countries run by the Taliban. And then when they have subjected their own people to such, they have this tendency to try and subject neighboring countries to their same ideal form of life. The primary difference between a government run by the Taliban, and one run by Christian Fundamentalists is that so far the latter has yet to occur.

So you propose anarchy?