Texan Bigotry

[rah]

Why? It's contrary to our mission. If you want a church that specifically says that black people have the mark of cain I believe the Mormon church is hiring.

As always you missed the point. By your logic they should be allowed to choose who they treat or don't by freedom of association. I'm still waiting for you to cite court rulings that support your opinion. I won't hold my breath.

[-Jrabbit]

Reading this thread almost makes me wish Poly would go down again.

[Sava]

you're welcome

[Ben Kenobi]

I can't believe this needs explaining.

I don't see the problem with any of these. If black folks want a 'no white people allowed' I think they should have it. Hey, whatever floats their boat.

[Ben Kenobi]

As always you missed the point. By your logic they should be allowed to choose who they treat or don't by freedom of association. I'm still waiting for you to cite court rulings that support your opinion. I won't hold my breath.

I cited the constitution. I don't see where the constitution says, "except for businesses that make money." to freedom of association. As for the church, the question again - should the state care? No. Should the Church care? Absolutely. The Church makes their hospitals available to all - not because they are forced to do so, but because that's how the Church works.

I'm really not sure why you're trying desperately to attach racism to the Catholic church. My parish right now I'm the only white dude. I used to have a black priest back in Prince George. He was fantastic! But hey - whatever. The Catholic church is obviously soo racist!

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben is like a little lost sheep that needs to find his way. I can help you find your way, Ben.

I've been there! I know folks here will never believe it but I used to believe in all this stuff... You can't go back again.

[rah]

I'm not trying to attach racism to the church, just to you. I really shouldn't bother since you do it without any help.

And again, I'm waiting for you to cite a court ruling that supports your opinion. I'm using blacks in my example because that is what's commonly used in the reasoning for the actual court opinions that I've read. I see no difference discriminating against gays and blacks.

[Ben Kenobi]

Blah. I've been maligned by plenty of conservatives too - conservatives willing to pitch aside what they believe in because they think the rules are hindering them! I've always thought that the same rules applied to everyone and that everyone would be better off if they follow the rules! I think that gay people themselves will be happier if they follow the rules - and that this whole gay marriage thing isn't going to give them what they want.

That's why I'm opposed to it - not because I think gay people are evil and sinners more than the rest of it - but because I want them to be happy people. Gay marriage isn't going to make them happy - not in the long run, because they were not made for it.

[Lorizael]

(Does anyone want to tell BK that the constitution does not explicitly protect the freedom of association?)

[Sava]

I'd rather not feed his victim complex.

[Felch]

Paul says that the dehumanizing nature of homosexual relationships in the Greek and Roman world, where the "receiver" is a boy slave who is used for sexual benefit and then cast aside when he becomes too old is not ok. The problem is the dehumanization, not the homosexual act - as in the problem with Onan is not obeying God in providing an heir for his brother's wife so that she could be taking care of, not the "spilling of seed".

There are Christians whose convictions led them to support slavery. Our convictions can be wrong and when they are in support of ostracism and hatred, I believe they are. Jail may be appropriate punishments. We cannot simply throw up our hands when people say their convictions tell them otherwise - what about human sacrifice?

Paul said nothing of the sort, at least not in his letter to the Romans.

[Ben Kenobi]

And again, I'm waiting for you to cite a court ruling that supports your opinion. I'm using blacks in my example because that is what's commonly used in the reasoning for the actual court opinions that I've read. I see no difference discriminating against gays and blacks.

"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."

Where does it say 'except for gays and blacks', in which case the government does get to regulate who can associate?

Here's what the Fourteenth has to say:

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Again, we don't see anywhere in it where it states that it can regulate association.

You would have to change it the way the Canadians have changed their constitution. Good luck with actually having to follow the law and passing a constitutional amendment!

[Imran Siddiqui]

What would be bigoted about arguing for Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States and the massive overreach of the Commerce Clause it represents to be overturned?

Maybe its the economist in me, but I do think it is stunningly naive to think that specific discriminatory motel practices in the aggregate doesn't impact interstate commerce (I realize that isn't exactly what "Heart of Atlanta Motel" says - that was based mostly on 75% of HoA clientele being from out of state). Though, interestingly, HoA Motel never argued on 1st Amendment grounds. They argued on 5th Amendment takings grounds.

And in the midst of all of this, Ben has never made anything close to as decent of an argument as this.

[rah]

That's why I'm opposed to it - not because I think gay people are evil and sinners more than the rest of it - but because I want them to be happy people. Gay marriage isn't going to make them happy - not in the long run, because they were not made for it.

Unbelievable.
Ben knows all.

[Ben Kenobi]

(Does anyone want to tell BK that the constitution does not explicitly protect the freedom of association?)

First amendment to the constitution. Nothing in it about 'except for gays or blacks who are protected classes to whom the state CAN regulate folks.'