TOTALLY GEEKED!

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Missouri passes bill to put religious liberty amendment on ballot

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Democrats filibustered to avoid putting the issue on the ballot?

So much for Democracy. They need to change the name of their party to the Non-Democratic Party.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

“By putting this in the constitution, we are tying their hands and we are saying to them we know better than they do about what kind of society they want to live in,” state Sen. Jason Holsman (D) said around hour 18 of the filibuster. “I don’t think that’s the case.”

Dude - it's getting put on the ballot to be voted on. If it passes, that's exactly the kind of society the majority want to live in.

Tinydancer · Guru

I hope it passes. I will never understand why they think forcing people to do things against their religion is right. Gays and trangenders are the only ones with rights in this situation.

weltschmerz · Guru

newrepublic.com/article/121187/idahos-christy-perry-defends-followers-christ-religious-exemption

Faith-Healer Parents Who Let Their Child Die Should Go to Jai

In America, 43 of the 50 U.S. states confer some type of civil or criminal immunity on parents who injure their children by withholding medical care on religious grounds. If your child has diabetes or a severe infection, and you pray for her instead of giving her insulin or antibiotics, she’ll probably die, but you’re largely off the legal hook. But that immunity doesn’t apply if you injure your child by withholding medical care for nonreligious reasons; for that, you can be prosecuted for neglect, abuse, or even manslaughter. This privileging of religion is dangerous to children—and has killed many of them. In Idaho, for instance, parents are immunized against prosecution for involuntary manslaughter or negligent homicide when they let their kids die in the name of faith. In fact, parents there can’t be prosecuted for anything if they rely solely on faith healing.

Religious freedoms like this?

-- Edited by weltschmerz on Wednesday 9th of March 2016 04:21:15 PM

Ohfour · Hooker

weltschmerz wrote:
newrepublic.com/article/121187/idahos-christy-perry-defends-followers-christ-religious-exemption

Faith-Healer Parents Who Let Their Child Die Should Go to Jai

In America, 43 of the 50 U.S. states confer some type of civil or criminal immunity on parents who injure their children by withholding medical care on religious grounds. If your child has diabetes or a severe infection, and you pray for her instead of giving her insulin or antibiotics, she’ll probably die, but you’re largely off the legal hook. But that immunity doesn’t apply if you injure your child by withholding medical care for nonreligious reasons; for that, you can be prosecuted for neglect, abuse, or even manslaughter. This privileging of religion is dangerous to children—and has killed many of them. In Idaho, for instance, parents are immunized against prosecution for involuntary manslaughter or negligent homicide when they let their kids die in the name of faith. In fact, parents there can’t be prosecuted for anything if they rely solely on faith healing.

Religious freedoms like this?

-- Edited by weltschmerz on Wednesday 9th of March 2016 04:21:15 PM

Ignorant comparison. No one is going to die if they can't get married by a minister or have a cake...

weltschmerz · Guru

Religious liberty is religious liberty.

Ohfour · Hooker

weltschmerz wrote:
Religious liberty is religious liberty.

Not when it involves murder.

weltschmerz · Guru

Got it.
You're all for religious liberty unless it's liberty you don't approve of.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

The Bible says we are to follow the law of the land unless it violates the law of God.

The law of God is thou shalt not kill.

It's only complicated if you make it complicated.

weltschmerz · Guru

Evidently, it's perfectly legal.
Besides, these parents would strongly disagree with you.
It's not murder, it's God calling his little children home.

Ohfour · Hooker

weltschmerz wrote:
Got it.
You're all for religious liberty unless it's liberty you don't approve of.

Are you touched? That is the ABSOLUTE MOST IGNORANT comment this board has ever, EVER had. And there have been some doozies! This wins dumbest post of all time.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

lilyofcourse wrote:
The Bible says we are to follow the law of the land unless it violates the law of God.

The law of God is thou shalt not kill.

It's only complicated if you make it complicated.

Yep. And the Courts have routinely struck down religious liberty if it does physical harm to others. Satan worshipers can't sacrifice people, for example.

weltschmerz · Guru

It's legal. The parents aren't punished.
They didn't stab or smother these kids. Their religion forbids meddling by doctors.
Kid gets sick, kid dies.

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

Ohfour wrote:
weltschmerz wrote:
Got it.
You're all for religious liberty unless it's liberty you don't approve of.
Are you touched? That is the ABSOLUTE MOST IGNORANT comment this board has ever, EVER had. And there have been some doozies! This wins dumbest post of all time.

It's 100% spot on. You get to pick & choose what YOU approve of.

flan

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

weltschmerz wrote:
It's legal. The parents aren't punished.
They didn't stab or smother these kids. Their religion forbids meddling by doctors.
Kid gets sick, kid dies.

It's supposed to be a bona fide religious belief. There is not a real religion I know of that says you can't seek medical treatment. Cults are not religion.

And regardless - it shouldn't be allowed. Freedom of religion shouldn't allow you to cause the death of someone.

Ohfour · Hooker

What you are talking about has nothing whatsoever to do with the OP, anyway. You just like to stir up crap...

weltschmerz · Guru

Again....it's perfectly legal. Not considered murder.

idahochildren.org/a-bill-to-repeal/

weltschmerz · Guru

Ohfour wrote:
What you are talking about has nothing whatsoever to do with the OP, anyway. You just like to stir up crap...

The OP isn't about religious liberty?

I'm talking about religious liberty. Evidently, you want to pick and choose which religious liberties you approve of.

weltschmerz · Guru

Ohfour wrote:
What you are talking about has nothing whatsoever to do with the OP, anyway. You just like to stir up crap...

ROTFLMAO! Read the "Girl too shy to ask boy out" thread.

You were very vocal there. Now, suddenly, my posts have nothing to do with the OP? Even when they do?

flan327 · Itty bitty's Grammy

weltschmerz wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
What you are talking about has nothing whatsoever to do with the OP, anyway. You just like to stir up crap...
The OP isn't about religious liberty?
I'm talking about religious liberty. Evidently, you want to pick and choose which religious liberties you approve of.

She knows best!

flan

Ohfour · Hooker

flan327 wrote:
weltschmerz wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
What you are talking about has nothing whatsoever to do with the OP, anyway. You just like to stir up crap...
The OP isn't about religious liberty?
I'm talking about religious liberty. Evidently, you want to pick and choose which religious liberties you approve of.

She knows best!
flan

Thank you.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

weltschmerz wrote:
Again....it's perfectly legal. Not considered murder.

idahochildren.org/a-bill-to-repeal/

It doesn't make it right.

Ohfour · Hooker

The SCOTUS has already ruled on this.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled seventy years ago, “The right to practice religion freely does not include liberty to expose the community or child to communicable disease, or the latter to ill health or death…. Parents may be free to become martyrs themselves. But it does not follow they are free, in identical circumstances, to make martyrs of their children before they have reached the age of full and legal discretion when they can make that choice for themselves.” Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944)

The law just need to be followed.

Ohfour · Hooker

Lawyerlady wrote:
weltschmerz wrote:
Again....it's perfectly legal. Not considered murder.

idahochildren.org/a-bill-to-repeal/

It doesn't make it right.

Right. Abortion is legal too. Doesn't make it right...

Euthanasia is legal in some places (thank GOD not in the US), doesn't mean it's right...

weltschmerz · Guru

Again...it's legal in many states. Idaho just refused to make it illegal to deny children life-saving medication.
You're talking about Mass.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

I don't agree with a lot of of religions rituals and beliefs.

But I do believe in religious freedom.

Meaning if their religion says no medical intervention, well, that's their freedom.

Do I agree with it? No.

Do I think they are following God's laws and commands? No.

But the second we start taking away the rights of one religion, we will take away another's rights.

We have to be very, very careful when we start limiting freedoms.

weltschmerz · Guru

Ohfour wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
weltschmerz wrote:
Again....it's perfectly legal. Not considered murder.

idahochildren.org/a-bill-to-repeal/

It doesn't make it right.
Right. Abortion is legal too. Doesn't make it right...
Euthanasia is legal in some places (thank GOD not in the US), doesn't mean it's right...

Ah, but we're not talking about what's right, are we?

I don't think it's "right" to discriminate against gays as per the OP. Lot's of folks don't think it's right.

Evidently "right" has little to do with it.

Ohfour · Hooker

weltschmerz wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
weltschmerz wrote:
Again....it's perfectly legal. Not considered murder.

idahochildren.org/a-bill-to-repeal/

It doesn't make it right.
Right. Abortion is legal too. Doesn't make it right...
Euthanasia is legal in some places (thank GOD not in the US), doesn't mean it's right...
Ah, but we're not talking about what's right, are we?
I don't think it's "right" to discriminate against gays as per the OP. Lot's of folks don't think it's right.
Evidently "right" has little to do with it.

Ad those people would be wrong.

weltschmerz · Guru

Ohfour wrote:
weltschmerz wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
weltschmerz wrote:
Again....it's perfectly legal. Not considered murder.

idahochildren.org/a-bill-to-repeal/

It doesn't make it right.
Right. Abortion is legal too. Doesn't make it right...
Euthanasia is legal in some places (thank GOD not in the US), doesn't mean it's right...
Ah, but we're not talking about what's right, are we?
I don't think it's "right" to discriminate against gays as per the OP. Lot's of folks don't think it's right.
Evidently "right" has little to do with it.
Ad those people would be wrong.

Again, the Grand Arbiter has spoken!!!

Ohfour · Hooker

weltschmerz wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
weltschmerz wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
weltschmerz wrote:
Again....it's perfectly legal. Not considered murder.

idahochildren.org/a-bill-to-repeal/

It doesn't make it right.
Right. Abortion is legal too. Doesn't make it right...
Euthanasia is legal in some places (thank GOD not in the US), doesn't mean it's right...
Ah, but we're not talking about what's right, are we?
I don't think it's "right" to discriminate against gays as per the OP. Lot's of folks don't think it's right.
Evidently "right" has little to do with it.
Ad those people would be wrong.
Again, the Grand Arbiter has spoken!!!

You are SO catching on! Just go with the flow...

weltschmerz · Guru

I caught on that you're SO full of yourself a long time ago.

Ohfour · Hooker

weltschmerz wrote:
I caught on that you're SO full of yourself a long time ago.

Now, now...we were making progress. Let's not backslide.

(om)

Bonny22Pye · Guru

Wouldn't these bills allow Muslims or Hasidic jews to refuse service to women if they passed? Not sure if I am reading the bill correctly.

weltschmerz · Guru

Bonny22Pye wrote:
Wouldn't these bills allow Muslims or Hasidic jews to refuse service to women if they passed? Not sure if I am reading the bill correctly.

Sounds like it.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Bonny22Pye wrote:
Wouldn't these bills allow Muslims or Hasidic jews to refuse service to women if they passed? Not sure if I am reading the bill correctly.

Yes.

And it's called religious freedom.

May not agree with it.

But how much are we willing to limit our freedom?

cadiver · Senior Member

Bonny22Pye wrote:
Wouldn't these bills allow Muslims or Hasidic jews to refuse service to women if they passed? Not sure if I am reading the bill correctly.

It is specific to same sex marriage:

SS#3/SJR 39 - This proposed constitutional amendment, if approved by the qualified voters of this state, prohibits the state from imposing a penalty on a religious organization who acts in accordance with a sincere religious belief concerning same sex marriage, which includes the refusal to perform a same sex marriage ceremony or allow a same sex wedding ceremony to be performed on the religious organization's property.

The state cannot penalize an individual who declines, due to sincere religious beliefs, to provide goods of expressional or artistic creation for a same sex wedding or wedding reception.

Nothing in the resolution prevents the state from providing lawful marriage licenses or other marital benefits. The resolution also does not allow a hospital to refuse to treat a marriage as valid for the purposes of a spouse's right to visitation or to make health care decisions. Further, nothing in this resolution shall create a cause of action against a private employer by an employee for termination related to the employee's religious beliefs concerning same sex marriage.

Persons protected by this resolution may use the law as a claim or defense in a legal proceeding regardless of whether the state is a party in the dispute.

Ohfour · Hooker

Bonny22Pye wrote:
Wouldn't these bills allow Muslims or Hasidic jews to refuse service to women if they passed? Not sure if I am reading the bill correctly.

I dont have a problem with that. But women are a protected class. Gays are not. Marriage as an institution is not.

Although the gays did go apeschitt when our company required them to get married in order to continue spousal benefits. It was hilarious...

weltschmerz · Guru

Ohfour wrote:
Bonny22Pye wrote:
Wouldn't these bills allow Muslims or Hasidic jews to refuse service to women if they passed? Not sure if I am reading the bill correctly.
I dont have a problem with that. But women are a protected class. Gays are not. Marriage as an institution is not.
Although the gays did go apeschitt when our company required them to get married in order to continue spousal benefits. It was hilarious...

Yeah, discrimination is a real laugh riot! A veritable knee-slapper!

Bonny22Pye · Guru

Ohfour wrote:
Bonny22Pye wrote:
Wouldn't these bills allow Muslims or Hasidic jews to refuse service to women if they passed? Not sure if I am reading the bill correctly.
I dont have a problem with that. But women are a protected class. Gays are not. Marriage as an institution is not.
Although the gays did go apeschitt when our company required them to get married in order to continue spousal benefits. It was hilarious...

I am not ok with being denied a service because I am a woman. What if I am stranded somewhere and the only taxi is being driven by a Muslim? What if the only grocery store is super Hasidic and I'm not allowed to go in?

I just don't think you should be able to deny people when you are offering a public business.

Ohfour · Hooker

weltschmerz wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
Bonny22Pye wrote:
Wouldn't these bills allow Muslims or Hasidic jews to refuse service to women if they passed? Not sure if I am reading the bill correctly.
I dont have a problem with that. But women are a protected class. Gays are not. Marriage as an institution is not.
Although the gays did go apeschitt when our company required them to get married in order to continue spousal benefits. It was hilarious...
Yeah, discrimination is a real laugh riot! A veritable knee-slapper!

Ummm...i think you are having comprehension issues. They wanted equal treatment and when they got it, they were furious. Losers...

Dona Worry Be Happy · Vette's SS!!

cadiver wrote:
Bonny22Pye wrote:
Wouldn't these bills allow Muslims or Hasidic jews to refuse service to women if they passed? Not sure if I am reading the bill correctly.

It is specific to same sex marriage:

SS#3/SJR 39 - This proposed constitutional amendment, if approved by the qualified voters of this state, prohibits the state from imposing a penalty on a religious organization who acts in accordance with a sincere religious belief concerning same sex marriage, which includes the refusal to perform a same sex marriage ceremony or allow a same sex wedding ceremony to be performed on the religious organization's property.
The state cannot penalize an individual who declines, due to sincere religious beliefs, to provide goods of expressional or artistic creation for a same sex wedding or wedding reception.
Nothing in the resolution prevents the state from providing lawful marriage licenses or other marital benefits. The resolution also does not allow a hospital to refuse to treat a marriage as valid for the purposes of a spouse's right to visitation or to make health care decisions. Further, nothing in this resolution shall create a cause of action against a private employer by an employee for termination related to the employee's religious beliefs concerning same sex marriage.
Persons protected by this resolution may use the law as a claim or defense in a legal proceeding regardless of whether the state is a party in the dispute.

Holy fvck. Why is ANYONE okay with this? This is institutionalized discrimination.

Ohfour · Hooker

I shouldnt be forced to be a party to your immorality.

Ohfour · Hooker

And in most states, gay is not a protected class. This resolution just supports that. For instance...in TN, you can be denied housing and employment if you are gay.

-- Edited by Ohfour on Wednesday 9th of March 2016 06:54:29 PM

weltschmerz · Guru

Ohfour wrote:
And in most states, gay is not a protected class. This resolution just supports that. For instance...in TN, you can be denied housing and employment if you are gay.

-- Edited by Ohfour on Wednesday 9th of March 2016 06:54:29 PM

Well, of course you can!

Gays have been a protected class here for 40 years, since 1977.

Time to get out of the Stone Age.

-- Edited by weltschmerz on Wednesday 9th of March 2016 07:02:00 PM

Ohfour · Hooker

weltschmerz wrote:
Ohfour wrote:
And in most states, gay is not a protected class. This resolution just supports that. For instance...in TN, you can be denied housing and employment if you are gay.

-- Edited by Ohfour on Wednesday 9th of March 2016 06:54:29 PM
Well, of course you can!
Gays have been a protected class here for 40 years, since 1977.
Time to get out of the Stone Age.

-- Edited by weltschmerz on Wednesday 9th of March 2016 07:02:00 PM

Neh...we are doing just fine...the most powerful country on Earth. Thats pretty impressive. Just sayin...

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Dona Worry Be Happy wrote:
cadiver wrote:
Bonny22Pye wrote:
Wouldn't these bills allow Muslims or Hasidic jews to refuse service to women if they passed? Not sure if I am reading the bill correctly.

It is specific to same sex marriage:

SS#3/SJR 39 - This proposed constitutional amendment, if approved by the qualified voters of this state, prohibits the state from imposing a penalty on a religious organization who acts in accordance with a sincere religious belief concerning same sex marriage, which includes the refusal to perform a same sex marriage ceremony or allow a same sex wedding ceremony to be performed on the religious organization's property.
The state cannot penalize an individual who declines, due to sincere religious beliefs, to provide goods of expressional or artistic creation for a same sex wedding or wedding reception.
Nothing in the resolution prevents the state from providing lawful marriage licenses or other marital benefits. The resolution also does not allow a hospital to refuse to treat a marriage as valid for the purposes of a spouse's right to visitation or to make health care decisions. Further, nothing in this resolution shall create a cause of action against a private employer by an employee for termination related to the employee's religious beliefs concerning same sex marriage.
Persons protected by this resolution may use the law as a claim or defense in a legal proceeding regardless of whether the state is a party in the dispute.
Holy fvck. Why is ANYONE okay with this? This is institutionalized discrimination.

No, it isn't. It allows people with religious views to opt out of participating in same sex weddings. That's not discrimination, it's a protected a legally forced servitude of one class for another.

weltschmerz · Guru

Lol! Isn't the Trumpster saying "Make America Great Again"?
That means it's not so great.

ed11563 · Guru

lilyofcourse wrote:
The Bible says we are to follow the law of the land unless it violates the law of God.

The law of God is thou shalt not kill.

It's only complicated if you make it complicated.

I think the wording is "thou shalt not murder", which is different.

That allows for killing under certain circumstances ... war, self defense, fatal mistakes, and more.

Is it murder if you could easily save your child from death, and choose not to?

Faith healers and believers in faith healing think that God is killing their child, not them (the parents).

I disagree. But while they are killing their child ... is it "murder" in God's perception, according to any Bible?

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

ed11563 wrote:
lilyofcourse wrote:
The Bible says we are to follow the law of the land unless it violates the law of God.

The law of God is thou shalt not kill.

It's only complicated if you make it complicated.
I think the wording is "thou shalt not murder", which is different.
That allows for killing under certain circumstances ... war, self defense, fatal mistakes, and more.

Is it murder if you could easily save your child from death, and choose not to?
Faith healers and believers in faith healing think that God is killing their child, not them (the parents).
I disagree. But while they are killing their child ... is it "murder" in God's perception, according to any Bible?