Ask your difficult questions of an Atheist.

Illogical. Freedom of something includes the ability to choose not to avail one's self of it. Freedom from religion does not include being exempt from exposure of religion, anymore than freedom of religion means being exempt from exposure to other religions. Anyone who claims otherwise is ignorant of how freedoms work.

 

not so, you are confusing it with recognition, marriages are recognized socially and recognized legally, however they are private. A purely 'legal' marriage is technically a partnership. If 2 people pool things together that is a marriage although it has no legal standing in most cases, but that does not mean no remedy can be had in the event of a divorce.

There is no such rule. freedom of means you put up with the next guys religion freedom from can correctly be construed as you do not have to put up with anyone elses religion but your own

FREEDOM OF RELIGION IS AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT!

and neither do you have any right to impose your commercial religion on a cake baker.

You most certainly do have the right to discriminate if someone elses religion YOURS forces them to commit a crime against their own God.
What makes you think you can INVENT a word DISCRIMINATION then DISCRIMINATE them by FORCING YOUR COMMERCIAL RELIGION on someone? eh?

He is correct, freedom from religion is a laughing stock premise.
Now if neoatheists really understood wtf they are talking about they would say "freedom from being forced to ACCEPT SOMEONE ELSE'S religion as their own."

 

I should be getting paid for teaching grammar out here.

The rest of mankind who were not killed by these plagues still did not repent of the work of their hands; they did not stop worshiping demons, and idols of gold, silver, bronze, stone and wood—idols that cannot see or hear or walk.

 

Nothing wrong with that grammar!

That all you have is puerile superstitions to support your position says volumes. Even more so since the one you are quoting sounds like it was written by someone who was stoned out his mind on drugs.

 

That is absolutely bogus. When you force people to do things against their religion it is persecution.. its just your religion doing it so you ignore it.
Gays being a legitimate minority worthy os special legal protection is a religious opinion.

 

Full of it...

 

I see now what I stepped into by attempting debate with you....So...

Have A Nice Day

 

Yup you just think it's ok to tell religious people how to live..It's that simple.

The whole debate about homosexuality is a red herring. It's not about gays at all. Its about attempts to destroy religion.
Just like John Lennon told you to do.

 

That's right, part of that exposure is dealing with people who think what you are doing is wrong. Homosexual marriage and for example Christianity are not compatable.
The way it has to work is for Gays not to be offended by people not taking place in their events and for Christians to let them go have their event.
The concept of live and let live, ya know

 

baking a cake is not against any religion on earth.

 

Guess what little cupcake....many people think what THEY are doing is wrong. Apparently and according to you, rights and dignity are incompatible with Christianity.

 

If the Billion(s) or so folks who take religion to heart as something and meaningful and necessary in their lives did not have religion what would they replace it with?

I tend to think, given the nature of many religious people to only accept their concept of a deity as the only deity that whatever they replace religion with would result in more turmoil not less. So let them have their religions. For the most part they prey on each other.

 

I’ve asked this question before on threads that get hysterical about selling wedding cakes to queers like me. Why would any self-respecting gay even want to have their wedding cake made by bigots? Ruin my wedding day it would just looking as the damned thing and wondering if the baker had, acitng for and on behalf of an all-loving God, added a touch of rat poison to the mix.

 

you stepped into a debate with someone who has a rock solid defense against your rhetoric

everything is wrong with that grammar, the problem is that you cant see it.

Yes I did quote you.

ah head still in the sand I see

https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/klein-cert-stage.pdf

bigots? wtf?
they served the gays several times before this incident when the gays demanded they become an accessory to a crime against their God in which the rightfully and correctly refused.

 

When a baker or florist or Catholic company takes advantage of tax credits, they have to abide by the laws. I guess it would be OK if somebody refused to serve an interracial couple because he doesn’t believe in that. We have laws in this land and if you can’t abide by them then you have to look for a different career

 

And yet we have a president who has every crime against a God and his record whether it be adultery, greed , divorce etc.

 

Not all laws are constitutional. Any law regarding the free practice of religion is by definition unconstitutional.

 

Yet ANOTHER miserable FAILURE to refute anything because it is IMPOSSIBLE to defend theist bigotry that VIOLATES individual Constitutional RIGHTS.

 

Any theology whose very foundation is the concept of redemption through suffering is about as undignified as it can get.

 

Too funny guys. Total religious intolersnce.
Just as expected.

Just so you all know the supreme court disagrees with you. Both the baker and the florist. Went to the supreme court.
It is a constitutional violation to force an artist to create a form of expression that violates their religion.

It's not discrimination!

Only people who intolerant of other peoples religion would think that it is.

In both cases it was ultra leftist state governments attacking people on the basis of their religious convictions. Washington and Colorado to be specific.


There you go, i don't have to refute you. The supreme court already did. Neither of these cases were about discrimination. Both of these businesses served gay people on a daily basis.
Marriage is a deeply religious event. You cannot force people to condone an event which violates their religious conscience.

That in itself is intolerance.

Ohh and by the way, hobby lobby won their birth control case as well...

Why? The first ammendment to the constitution provides for the freedom of religion.
Forcing people to do things against their religion is unconstitutional.

But i don't expect you to understand. Your religion says everything traditional is bad and must be torn down. It's the leftist way.

 

Bakers and florists are ARTISTS now and baking cakes is a form of "freedom of expression'?

Yet another STRIKE against the Roberts court that will be overturned in the course of time just as Dred Scott was overturned for being UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Needless to say you STILL HAVE NOT managed to substantiate your BOGUS allegation about freedom FROM religion.

Why is that?

Have you given up because you figured out that it was WRONG?

 

!!! WTF , Lennon? Ya, I called him every day , even after he died, to get his ruling for the day …..

 

Great point, Could happen....religion does that to people, justifies their hate and violence against "bad" people.

 

The supreme court says your wrong. And just to make you mad I'll point out that Trump has 5.5 more years to appoint proper judges.