Featured Loss of your rights

Hello Brandon, and welcome to the forum, I hope your time here will be blessed, and that you will in turn be a blessing to those here.

Have to disagree with you, though, on this issue. The right for a business owner to practice his religious beliefs has been threatened. The very fact that a business owner has a right to refuse service based on religious view is being challenged shows the serious nature of what is at risk.

The government has no authority to challenge that which is based on religious belief. And while we would expect a modicum of common sense, and deny someone's right to smoke pot, for example, because it is a "religious belief" (though that could be argued in light of the sorcery that was practiced in pagan religions), and we would balance "rights" with established laws (such as certain drugs being illegal and this is common knowledge), the government trying to force someone to, for example, bake a cake for homosexuals...is challenging our rights.

Speaking of government strong-arming, lol, as I said, I am forced by the government to buy health insurance under threat of financial penalty.

I once had liberty to be the one to decide whether I wanted to have it or not.

And you don't think that is a right that is gone?

What is next, forcing people to carry auto insurance? lol

I don't see it as "We are indeed a long way from losing any real rights," but just the opposite...we are on the verge of allowing government to use Special Rights Agendas as a cover to illegally establish laws that are contrary to our basic rights.

And it is a specifically liberal influence that is underlying some of the nonsense we see in the media.

Again, welcome to the forum.


God bless.

 

Well, that's where separation of church and state comes in for me. The Founding Fathers didn't set up the union to favor any specific brand of Christianity (although they did acknowledge a Supreme Being); they were allowing people to worship in any way they chose, as opposed to the oppressive, state-driven brand of orthodoxy their forefathers had fled England over.

If you're referring to the cake shop incident, I think it's a case of bullying by the ACLU (and so does Patrick Stewart), but whether it's a matter of legality or not isn't clear. Christians aren't allowed to kill people, for example, if they say their religion commands it. It doesn't, of course, but what if they're mentally unstable?

And thanks for the welcome.

 

No, that is an option that has been taken away. Rights are granted by the Constitution. You don't get the right not to do something.


Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo using Tapatalk.

 

When a human being is legally murdered in the womb, he/she loses every right afforded by the Constitution.

HankD

 

Exactly. Now how is forcing a business owner to provide services that violate their religious beliefs not an intrusion into their religious freedom?

I am, as well as the Pizza Shop incident.

Who instigates what is secondary. It is the government's actions that are in view.

But I agree with you, I think many of these instances are not only taken advantage of by certain people, but quite possibly contrived as a means to see new laws passed.

The recent gun shooting in Oregon, for example. Do we see outrage at what could be called religious persecution? No, we see typical liberal propaganda centered on an agenda for gun law change.

What if this had been a Mosque?

Don't know who that is.

Sure it is. The government should not think they stand in a position where they can regulate the legality of religious belief based on lifestyles. Homosexuality stands in direct violation of our beliefs, and if those beliefs go to the extent that serving at a homosexual wedding is viewed as contributing to the damnation of others...it is the religious right of the individual not to participate.

The government cannot say "You have to."

Just like the government shouldn't tell me I have to buy any product.

I did say...

Murder is also illegal, and that is accepted.

We cannot conceive of a parallel where the government would force a Christian to commit murder. How about the government forcing divorce? How about the government deciding that if preliminary finding on a child about to be born unhealthy, and they say "You must abort?"

So why would it be okay for them to say "You must cater to a homosexual wedding...that is just the law?"

We have ways of dealing with those who are mentally unstable, but that is not what is in view. The cake shop owner was not, though the intention is to cast them as having hateful motivation to refuse service, rather than religious. It is yet another ploy of tolerance disguised as seeking "justice."

And glad to have you here, Brandon. Good to see some new "faces" showing up. That is always healthy for any forum, and a contribution to the community here.


God bless.

 

Changing "liberty" to "option" doesn't change the fact that I use to have the freedom to make that decision myself.

I would agree that it should not be placed in the same category of rights, however, the same result is in view. The government deciding that I am to do something against my will...or be penalized. It is primarily financial, and what you may not have considered is that one underlying issue is this law is meant to help provide coverage for people who...do not have the necessary means to afford insurance.

Now that seems very noble, but...

...where does the Constitution supply the "Right to free health insurance?"

And if my religious views are that if one does not work, neither should they eat, and I am forced to provide for people who are capable of getting off their duffs and going out and earning what they receive, and, I believe the law to be part of a religion (Secular Humanism)...do my views matter?

In my work I have seen plenty of people that live off of the government. I have never wanted anything from them, and was paying for my own health insurance, out of my own pocket, until the new law was passed. While I do think it is good that we take care of people who cannot provide for themselves, I do not see that government provision (which is greatly lacking in discerning those who should be helped) is a right.

If we required those who are receiving benefits to do something in return, the money saved could cover the needs.

Here is a suggestion: for those receiving benefits who truly want to work, initiate a training program and send them to school to learn a trade or vocation while they are receiving them. They would need to work for the government in positions that are available that are already being paid apart from benefits. They work for the government for, let's say 5 years, and when that term is finished their obligation is fulfilled and if they desire they can go work in the private sector.

How about drug testing? If you use drugs...no benefits. That might cut down on government waste.

But that is not what is done. What is done is people are forced by the government to buy a product that previously they did not have to. You might think it's okay, but I hope not. What's next? And while the Constitution might not cover some of these things, liberty is liberty. Does the business owner only have an "option" in how he runs his business? Do the laws that were in place prior to this new attack need to be replaced with laws demanding they comply with actions that violate the conscience of the business owner?


God bless.

 

We are not indeed a long way from losing any real rights. When we are forced to buy a product or service simply because we exist that is unAmerican and most certainly a loss of rights. When the unborn are slaughtered in the womb that is a loss of rights. If the communists in the whitehouse had their way we would lost the right to bear arms and do not be fooled. they will not give up trying.

We need to pay attention to the smaller matters so that the small does not become the big.

 

Bring up to him the fact that a Christian couple is being persecuted for not baking a cake. And the fact that SSM is now legal. Our rights have been trumped. You can get arrested for freedom of speech. It's just getting worse. I hope he wakes up.

 

You should have stopped here. The fact is not needing to buy something is not a right. Period.

The Constitution spells out our rights. The states are supposed to regulate everything else. That means the state can make you wear a purple hat on Friday afternoons if they legislate it. No Constitutional rights are being violated.

 

As I said, I am not calling my freedom not to buy a product a Constitutional Right.

Instead of stopping you should have actually read what I said.

And if you think the state has the right to dictate how people live...you are seriously mistaken. Apparently you and I have a difference of opinion on what Liberty means.

And you seem to miss the point that has been made by several members concerning our Liberty being stripped under our noses. If you think it is okay for legislation that dictates specific forced actions of Citizens, then you simply don't understand that Tyranny is the very thing that our Country was in opposition to when the Constitution was drafted.

So you wear a purple hat if it is made law, and like it. Me, I will dress as I choose.

And when the Law forces people to do things that they do not want to do...that enters into the arena of Tyranny...not Liberty.

You are supporting the very agendas that want to deny our right to religious freedom, our right to bear arms, and our right to not do that which violates our religious belief.

When you wake up in an America where you have to do that which violates your liberty as an American Citizen, because you cannot purchase a gun to protect your family, because you cannot speak out against homosexuality, and you cannot decide how you are going to run your business and decide who your business caters to...

...pat yourself on the back.

Just do me a favor, look up liberty and tyranny.

While I do not consider many of the men who are called founding fathers Christians, our beliefs do share in that we fear the God of the Bible. What we believe as Christians today are not so different from their beliefs, and those men understood Tyranny.

And if you cannot distinguish the difference between a government forcing people to do something versus the liberty not to do something, I feel very sorry for you. That you are confused about this is seen in your statement, "That means the state can make you wear a purple hat on Friday afternoons if they legislate it."

No, ITL, the State/s cannot make me wear a purple hat. Just as we do not caricaturize religious freedom to the point of claims that certain activities are religious rights/rites (i.e., smoking pot, murder, et cetera, as mentioned in the part you apparently paid no heed to), neither do we caricaturize the Power of our Government. That is precisely what you do in your statement.

Our Government is designed to make sure Tyranny does not become the rule of "law." That is why we can bear arms. That is why we have religious liberty. That is why some of us...

...won't be wearing purple hats.

God bless.

 

So tell me, where does the Constitution provide the right to free healthcare?


God bless.

 

I suggest you go back and read the OP to get the topic being discussed.

I don't have to like what the state decides, but:

Do you have to wear seat belts in your state?
How about speed limits? Got 'em?
Teenager night curfews?
Are children required by law to go to school?
Can a 10 year old buy tobacco? Why not? When did we lose that liberty?

Losses of personal liberties does not equal loss of Constitutional rights. And I never said I liked it. Stop it.

Are motorcyclists in your state required to wear helmets?
Do you have to take your shoes off before boarding a plane?

I not supporting it in the least. Quit making stuff up about me. I'm simply pointing out the definition of a Constitutional right and an erosion of freedoms.

<snip rest of diatribe>

 

It doesn't. The Constitution was not amended to provide ObamaCare. It was legislated. BTW, ObamaCare is not free. Medicaid is, though.

 

I believe our rights are being ignored by the courts. It seems when it comes to homosexuals being served, we no longer can refuse. We use to have the right to refuse to serve. Our county clerk has refused to issue a marriage license because of her religious freedom and was put in Jail for contempt of court.
Any time a Judge says you can't do, what is your right to do. They are taking your rights away
MB

 

Business owners still have a right to refuse service. County clerks are employees of the government. They must carry out governmental functions.

 

I think it's possible that we are becoming a police state and our legal rights are fading away. Where I live they jailed the county clerk for not issuing a marriage license to a homosexual couple. They fined a Baker for not making a wedding cake for a homosexual wedding. The right to refuse service is still a right.
MB

 

Smart boy you've got there. The whole losing your rights thing is a fear tactic used by both political parties. It's very hard to lose the right to do anything in this country. The times that it does happen is because BOTH parties concede to letting the government do something to "protect" us or to "keep us safe".

 

How is forcing someone to do something that they previously did not have to do...not relevant to the OP?

No law saying I have to get in a car. I still make that decision.

No law saying I have to drive. I still make that decision.

No law saying I have to have kids.

No law saying I have to send them to a Public School, I have the freedom to choose home schooling or a private School (which we actually did with our nieces and nephew).

You are missing the point. I never said all laws were wrong. What is in view was explained in my last post, but since you apparently did not pick up on it let me explain it again: the government is now forcing me to buy health insurance when I use to have the freedom to make that choice.

You are rather selective in what you respond to. Look up tyranny yet?

Perhaps that "modicum of common sense" that I mentioned several posts back?

When the government starting regulating tobacco sales, perhaps?

So tell me, how is that relevant to the government forcing someone to buy something? You are swinging a bat at a basketball here, ITL.

To have a parallel we would need to see the government saying "You have to drive, you have to buy tobacco, and you have to go to the Schools we provide."

I agree in part, but at the same time the loss of freedoms isn't going to be swift and noticeable, but in small measures. It's like boiling a frog.

And forced health care purchase is just a few degrees added to the water.

I'm just responding to what you say. Do you think you have the right to speak your mind but I do not have the right to speak my own? If you don't really want responses, it is up to you to stop.

No laws requiring anyone to ride a motorcycle. I still have the freedom to decide.

No laws requiring me to get on a plane. I still have the freedom to decide.

It is sad you don't understand you are.

Liberal agendas that run under a guise of helping people when they are in fact not only hurting people...they murdering some of them.

It's not made up.

You are doing your best to defend Obamacare and you are failing miserably.

And you deny an attempt to force a business owner to cater to a ceremony that he/she finds not only offensive to their religious views...but damning.

It is an erosion of freedom and I cannot see how you are "pointing that out," simply defending that erosion by denying it.

While it is not a Constitutional Right not to buy health-care, you cannot deny that we once made that decision...for ourselves.

Trying to equate that to other laws is defending that "law" and when you defend...you condone.

Translates to "I have addressed what I want to but cannot address the rest."


God bless.