No pure ideologue should ever be confirmed to the Supreme Court of the United
States. Neil Gorsuch -- despite his fine paper credentials -- is just exactly
what we do not need on the Court.
@Yar; you said:"Religious freedom is a fundamental right that
has benefited this nation for over 200 years. Those who insist that it's
"code word for hate" are misunderstanding the point. There do exist
religious folk like me who want to do no harm to anyone whatsoever but do not
desire to displease the deities they worship. If you want to live a lifestyle
that I believe is not moral or correct, I'm OK with that. I'm serious.
It's your choice. I won't hold your choices or beliefs against you.
Just don't take my beliefs personally and please don't force me to
violate my beliefs."Then:"I'm afraid
I'm not the right person to ask. Maybe try asking another religious person.
Perhaps they might answer your question better than I can. In the meantime,
I'm gonna do some research on the subject."---
Shouldn't you have made certain of your deity's position BEFORE you
made the ridiculous claim that It might be 'displeased' in the first
@wrzI'll believe that "corporations are people" when Texas
executes one.@UtahBlueDevilI hope you're right about
Gorsuch, but his writing on the supposed "sanctity of life" (in the
context of assisted suicide laws) worries me.@wrzWell, he also
has a disdain for unenumerated rights, so any argument born out of the 9th or
10th amendments is probably going to fail with him.@Yar"
If you want to live a lifestyle that I believe is not moral or correct, I'm
OK with that."That's nice. Maybe you, and the rest of
America's religious folk, could have come to that conclusion *before* you
were dragged to court in Griswold v. Connecticut, Loving v. Virginia, Roe v.
Wade, Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas, Windsor v. United States, and Obergefel
v. Hodges? Fact is, America's religious folk have never played by
"live and let live". So given the long history of your team forcing
your values on people that disagree, even if I take your words as true, why
should I ever believe you speak for the team as a whole? And if you're
unwilling to speak for everyone, why do you insist on speaking in defense of
@RanchWell, I'm afraid I'm not the right person to ask.
Maybe try asking another religious person. Perhaps they might answer your
question better than I can. In the meantime, I'm gonna do some research on
the subject. Hopefully, I can find an answer. Have a great day!
@Yar;You didn't answer the question I asked. However,
don't you think the scripture you posted: "Thou shalt love thy
neighbor as thyself." is telling you that your deity WANTS you to treat ALL
people well? It doesn't want you to discriminate against anyone. Don't you think your deity will be MORE angry at you for REFUSING
to "love thy neighbor as thyself"?Please just stop with the
"we don't want to offend our deity" nonsense. Because that is what
it is. Nonsense. The ONLY reason to refuse service to someone is personal
dislike; stop blaming it on your deity.
@RanchThis is probably not the best scripture (and this is not from
the Bible) but here's the closest one that comes to mind:"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Thou shalt not steal; neither
commit adultery, nor kill, nor do anything like unto it."Doctrine & Covenants 59:6As for your concerns about a double
standard we are accused of, I'm not sure how to address this one. I
suppose, based on what I reading here, we could deny service to all who break
any of the commandments and don't repent if we are to be consistent. I
don't know. Maybe some other religious person can explain to you how we
reconcile with it.
@Yar;Will you PLEASE provide ANY scriptural references where your
deity will be "displeased" if you provide your businesses' product
or service to an LGBT couple.And, don't you think that if your
deity would be so upset at you for providing that service to an LGBT couple,
wouldn't it be equally displeased if you were to provide that service to an
adulterous couple? Or a fornicating couple? Or even a thief, murderer, liar,
Sabbath breaker? Those were actually things that the Judeo/Christian god made
direct statements about in the top 10 Thou Shalt Nots.Isn't it
hypocritical to tell the one "sinner" that you can't serve them
because your deity will be offended, but to turn around and serve others It
equally despises?You have yet to answer this question and you KEEP
bring up the "we don't want to offend god" nonsense.
@Hiatis here is one idea lets stop demonizing an entire religion
based on the actions of a small group of extremist that kill more people from
that religion then all other religion combined. secondly lets base or defense
on the facts not irrational fear mongering that only furthers the terrorist
agenda. Lets build as many bridges as possible towards anyone that is not part
of the extremist groups so that these groups become more isolated and less able
to recruit In other words lets stop being part of the problem.
Religious Freedom is important to most if not all faiths and contributes to the
happiness of every Nation that has or seeks it. This is not our grand parents or
even our parents time of peace anymore and the World is in turmoil over many
issues, religion is one of them. When any religion threatens the peace and
safety of any nation or people with violence and death then action has to be
taken to quell or eliminate the danger to the Citizens of that nation. This is
the problem facing many nations including the US right now and most of these
nations have waited to long to act trying to give those responsible for the
problems time to adjust but to no avail. It is very apparent that many people in
every affected Country doesn't comprehend the gravity of the situation and
wants terrorist coming into their Country at any cost, regardless of the
consequences, to protect religious freedom. So how do you get these threats out
of a Country? First of all you have to stop the flow coming in........... then
start the flow going out. Simple as that...... don't use religion use
their Citizenship and affiliation. Unless someone has a better idea.......
Many rightwing conservatives gave President Obama a lot of criticism because he
was in the congregation of Jeremiah Wright, whose controversial statements were
supposed to have tainted President Obama somehow.But no rightwing
conservatives are questioning Gorsuch, who is apparently a Catholic apostate who
worships with a politically liberal congregation at St. John's Episcopal
Church in Boulder, Colorado. This congregation bans guns from its campus,
condemns harsh rhetoric about Muslims, and welcomes gays and lesbians. Its
rector, the Rev. Susan Springer, attended the Women's March in Denver.
A"Gorsuch ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby,..."--- Indicating
that to Gorsuch, the "religious freedom" of the corporation is more
important than the religious freedom of the employees of the corporation."...any sincerely held religious belief cannot be abridged by the
government without a compelling reason..." &""We have a
free exercise clause that protects the free exercise of religious liberties by
all persons in this country," Gorsuch said. "I will apply the law
faithfully and fearlessly and without regard to persons."---
He's willing to let businesses discriminate against certain groups of
customers.@wrz;When corporations can go to prison for
their crimes, they can be considered "people".@Yar;You keep saying you don't want to displease the deities you worship;
PLEASE show me ANY scriptures that say the deities would be "displeased"
if you serve an LGBT couple. One scripture would do! All that nonsense is, is
a reason to discriminate against customers that the "religious" find
offensive. Period.Again, I ask you for a scriptural reference for
the displeasure of your deities.
Religious freedom is a fundamental right that has benefited this nation for over
200 years. Those who insist that it's "code word for hate" are
misunderstanding the point. There do exist religious folk like me who want to
do no harm to anyone whatsoever but do not desire to displease the deities they
worship. If you want to live a lifestyle that I believe is not moral or
correct, I'm OK with that. I'm serious. It's your choice. I
won't hold your choices or beliefs against you. Just don't take my
beliefs personally and please don't force me to violate my beliefs.
@wrzThe argument that regulations on abortion are a states right under
the10th amendment has been argued and rejected by the courts many times and is
part of the settled law. I know it's hard to imagain but you have not
discovered some new angle missed by everyone else 40 plus years.
@UtahBlueDevil:"For example, he has clearly stated that he feels that
abortion is settled law."Abortion might be settled (federal)
law. But, if the Constitution is followed, such a law is unconstitutional...
according to the 10th Amendment which limits federal powers to those listed in
that document. And there's nothing there that sez anything about abortion.
That jurisdiction falls within the powers of the various states. "Anyone believing he is the swing vote to make a difference... you will be
sorely disappointed."He certainly will be the swing vote in the
Trump Executive Order travel ban is it gets to the Supreme Court... and it will.
This article is partisan nonsense:"...conservative lawmakers on
the Senate Judiciary Committee [brought up religious freedom] to praise Gorsuch,
while those on the left looked for opportunities to trip him up."Why then is it a fact that Democrats are responsible for the RFRA? Schumer,
Kennedy, and Bill Clinton led its passage in 1993.This article is
"fake news" trying to push a partisan agenda at the expense of truth.
It is pretty obvious that not many actually watched any of the testimony or his
positions, because he is clearly not as to the right as many on the left here
are claiming, and he really isn't as right as many on the right wish him to
be. For example, he has clearly stated that he feels that abortion
is settled law. He has no intentions of trying to overturn 50 years of
precedent. Anyone believing he is the swing vote to make a difference... you
will be sorely disappointed. He is far more along the lines of a Kennedy - one
who will be willing to vote both ways depending on the case. What
is being described here reflects nothing of what the man has actually said... or
"religious freedom" is fine just as long as you don't attempt to
legislate your religious beliefs on the non believers, like many LDS did during
prop 8 here in California. Than it becomes religious oppression!
I don't know why Republicans and Trump just come right out and say it. We
all know it is true.Gorsuch was nominated because he will be a
reliable ultra-Conservative justice. He will allow people and corporations to
discriminate with almost any claim of free exercise of religion. He is the
candidate of the fundamentalists and evangelicals, their dream pick. He is a
consistent corporate apologist for almost any half baked claim corporate
American will put before him. He is proof to the ultra-Conservatives in the
Republican party that Trump is their "man".In all
probability he will be on the Supreme Court, McConnell will see to it. However,
he will always be in the Garland seat as long as I am alive. It was stolen.
Remember folks . . . Gorsuch is Putin's choice for the U.S. Supreme
Court.Putin's choice should not be America's choice.
@Impartial7:"Where were you when Republicans, including Orrin Hatch,
refused to consider Merrick Garland?"Republicans didn't
necessarily refuse to consider Garland. The Constitution gives the Senate the
power and authority to 'advise and consent' on Supreme Court judges.
Their 'advice' was to wait for a new president to make a nomination...
just as Senator Schumer advised several years ago."They
certainly were playing politics..."That's what politicians
do... they play politics.
Hutterite:"I still don't get how a non sentient organization, a
corporation, can practice religion if it requires belief."The
law sez that corporations are persons and persons have rights. If Congress
didn't want corporations in be involved in religion it should have not made
I still don't get how a non sentient organisation, a corporation, can
practice religion if it requires belief.
Merrick Garland, who was nominated by President Obama would have been a very
good Supreme Court Justice BYU Alum.......so why wasn't he at least given a
vote? The GOP held this country hostage and were against anything
that our Previous President wanted done. Even Hatch said Garland was a good
choice but then even he sided with politics.Sad that the GOP did
what it did to a qualified man and now they don't expect the same
treatment?BYU Alum, how is this administration doing so far? Not
very good! In fact the most disliked President so far in our history. Romney
wasn't wrong in his first evaluation of Trump. But he even changed sides
when it was expedient.
@BYUalum;" Dems who oppose him now (when they confirmed him to the
10th Circuit Court almost unanimously) are playing politics against President
Donald Trump! These are the people who need to be replaced!"Where were you when Republicans, including Orrin Hatch, refused to consider
Merrick Garland? A very qualified judge whom Hatch supported years earlier. They
certainly were playing politics and never heard you or other
"conservatives" calling for their replacement.
The Supreme Court will get the "real deal" when Neil Gorsuch is
confirmed to the bench.I don't think you could find a better
pick anywhere right now. Dems who oppose him now (when they confirmed him to the
10th Circuit Court almost unanimously) are playing politics against President
Donald Trump! These are the people who need to be replaced!
Religious freedom and freedom from religion mean different things to Democrats
and Republicans. Ever since the GOP embraced right wing evangelists, religion
freedom seems to mean freedom to discriminate against others based on religious
beliefs. They also want to impose their brand of christianity on everyone in the
country. Democrats seem to understand that you are free to practice your
religion, and everyone else is free to practice theirs, too. As long as your
religion doesn't infringe on the rights of others.