Does Religious Freedom Supercede Gender Identity?

Here maybe you’ll give it a go mr Civics 101 lol but I won’t hold my breath.

I want to know how you extrapolate out “the entire government and any entity that takes government funding” from the word CONGRESS. In the first amendment.

If the founders had intended it to mean government and not congress they would have said so. Are you under the impression they made a mistake or just forgot the word government so they used congress? Lol

 

As I said before. You do not choose a president like you choose a partner. Just like you CANNOT run a country like you would your private life. Therefore, when choosing a president, what they do in their private life is irrelevant. The ONLY thing that is relevant are the policies which he will enact and the good for the country he’s going to do.

 

Reading comprehension is your friend. Amendment 1 (first edition) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

And by the way the 'law' leaves room for much interpretation. My inerpretaion of the italized is that should I or anyone else for that matter choose to live their life free of any religion we most certainly have the constittional right to do so.

 

So what is your interpretation of the word “CONGRESS”?

 

You said we should never judge other people.

So if my neighbor abused children I can't judge them or condemn them because my personal belief is children should not be abused?

 

So, it isn't important to you that the leader of your country be completely anti-christian? Anti-American? The only thing that is important is that they be hyper-partisan?

 

The presidents job is not to be Christian. The presidents job is to run the country. The policies which he will dictate and the individuals he puts on the SCOTUS are all that matter.

Why would you put someone in office who was sweet and kind and charismatic but didn't know his ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to running a country?

 

So, the only thing that is important is that they be hyper partisan? And put party before country?

 

I mean look, your religion also tells you to love your neighbor, but instead you support throwing them in cages, and building walls against them, so this is nonsense.

 

The Constitution, the written law, is what's to be interpreted. As is all written law.

 

Again, you cannot run a country like you do your personal life. You cannot force everyone to be charitable. You cannot force people to not defend themselves when they get attacked by turning the other cheek. You have to have border control.

 

So, that proves that your religion is nonsense right?

 

Homosexuality is natural, as is left handedness and cancer. Now arguments can be made as to whether these things are positive, negative or neither. After all, left handedness was thought to be unnatural and negative at one point.

 

A case has to get there first. And to do that it has to show harm to someone, or a violation of rights. While a case might arise to cause a ruling on business rights related to SSM, what possible basis can a case make it to SCOTUS to show that the existence of SSM is any violation or rights or harm?

 

Not quite. An issue having a religious basis does not automatically preclude it having a secular basis as well. So while murder laws are allowable because they have a secular basis as well as a religious one, laws preventing businesses from operating on any given Sabbath have no secular basis. With that said, if a secular reason can be made for why businesses should not operate on Thursday, which also happens to be the Sabbath of the religion of Hypothetica, that's happenstance.

 

We don't interpret the body of government that writes the laws. We interpret the laws that they have written.

 

People and societies have been assigning traits to people and things long before records were ever made. I don't have to make a record of assigning the trait of dumbass to someone who claims that the existence of legal marriage negates the existence of religious marriage to assign it.

As to the seeing of the genitals, no one knew any better, but that doesn't prevent facts. No matter how much man thought the sun moved around the earth, that wasn't true. We can forgive them the ignorance since they could not know better, but it doesn't change that what they thought were facts into being facts. Genitals are an outward indicator, but which holds priority? The genitals, the chromosomes, or the location and/or activation of the SRY gene? Because all of these things play into what sex one or the other is, and they do not always match. And with that, given that none of these things are visible when you meet a person, how do you know what they have? Does a beard indicate a man? Plenty of women grow facial hair. Among the Sihk they aren't allowed to cut it so they have full beards. What is the ultimate, no exceptions, can't be denied criteria?

 

To make a law against murder solely based upon religion is not allowable. The fact that a religious basis coincides with a secular is irrelevant to that secular basis' existence.

 

The freedom of religion include the freedom to have no religion. Which is what most people mean when saying freedom from religion. However, there are a few who mistakingly equate religious freedom, including freedom from religion as meaning that the religious are not supposed to preach in public. As long as there is not harassment involved, freedom of speech and religion allow for public spreading of the word, and most understand that.

 

If states were sovereign, then they would have the right to withdraw from the union. That was declared unconstitutional as well. And the same resolution for lack of like for the laws of the country apply as well.

 

Did you vote for Trump?

 

Must be a pretty long crossfit session... or maybe you can’t prove anything wrong...

 

Because it is everywhere — it occurs naturally.


GAY PENGUINS IN ZOO STEAL EGG IN ATTEMPT TO BECOME DADS
https://www.newsweek.com/gay-penguins-zoo-steal-egg-attempt-become-dads-1471888


A gay flamingo couple has settled down together at the Denver Zoo
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2019/06/gay-flamingo-couple-settled-together-denver-zoo/

 

No it proves that my religion has little if nothing to do with whom I choose as president outside of his policies.

 

Which is a lie. But, it also means that your religion doesn't apply to real life, doesn't it?