|
|
Post by RichardInTN on Jun 30, 2023 22:49:57 GMT -5
At the end of June, SCOTUS announced rulings on several cases, two of them stick out to me...
On one hand they struck down the racist "Affirmative Action" as the racist garbage that it is, at least in part, by ruling against its use in college admissions. That was a good call.
On the other hand, they continue to regard BUSINESSES as PEOPLE and conferring the rights of PEOPLE onto BUSINESSES with the ruling in favor of a business being allowed to discriminate against gay people. That was NOT a good call.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sapphire on Jul 1, 2023 9:06:53 GMT -5
Totally agree with the striking down of affirmative action. Race doesn't determine a person's value, worth, capability, etc.
Re the one about businesses - It is a person who owns the business and that person should have the right to determine if they don't want to serve a person. I haven't heard details about this decision yet but I'm assuming the person's beliefs came into play. If the business is in an area with a high concentration of people the business owner does not wish to serve, the people will vote and the business owner will be out of business.
|
|
|
|
Post by RichardInTN on Jul 1, 2023 10:08:24 GMT -5
Totally agree with the striking down of affirmative action. Race doesn't determine a person's value, worth, capability, etc. Re the one about businesses - It is a person who owns the business and that person should have the right to determine if they don't want to serve a person. I haven't heard details about this decision yet but I'm assuming the person's beliefs came into play. If the business is in an area with a high concentration of people the business owner does not wish to serve, the people will vote and the business owner will be out of business. Allowing discrimination is a bad slippery slope, in my opinion. A person has the opportunity to choose to "not serve" by not opening the business or not having that particular service as an option... but once they open the business or offer the service, they should be required to serve all people equally. Even the Bible understands following the law, and supposedly God knows what's in each person's heart... so "beliefs" shouldn't really enter into it anyway. God would know that equality under the law IS the law (at least it's supposed to be, anyway... with this ruling there can be no equality so long as people are allowed to discriminate). |
|
|
|
Post by Sapphire on Jul 4, 2023 9:31:55 GMT -5
Totally agree with the striking down of affirmative action. Race doesn't determine a person's value, worth, capability, etc. Re the one about businesses - It is a person who owns the business and that person should have the right to determine if they don't want to serve a person. I haven't heard details about this decision yet but I'm assuming the person's beliefs came into play. If the business is in an area with a high concentration of people the business owner does not wish to serve, the people will vote and the business owner will be out of business. Allowing discrimination is a bad slippery slope, in my opinion. A person has the opportunity to choose to "not serve" by not opening the business or not having that particular service as an option... but once they open the business or offer the service, they should be required to serve all people equally. Even the Bible understands following the law, and supposedly God knows what's in each person's heart... so "beliefs" shouldn't really enter into it anyway. God would know that equality under the law IS the law (at least it's supposed to be, anyway... with this ruling there can be no equality so long as people are allowed to discriminate). The Bible also says that God's law trumps man's law when man's law violates God's law. Acts 5:27-29 demonstrates this: And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest questioned them, saying, “We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man's blood upon us.” But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men. The apostles were charged to stop preaching the gospel but since that contradicts God's commands, they must follow God. Christians are directed to follow man's law since leaders are appointed by God but that ends when it conflicts with God's law. |
|
|
|
Post by RichardInTN on Jul 4, 2023 10:19:47 GMT -5
Allowing discrimination is a bad slippery slope, in my opinion. A person has the opportunity to choose to "not serve" by not opening the business or not having that particular service as an option... but once they open the business or offer the service, they should be required to serve all people equally. Even the Bible understands following the law, and supposedly God knows what's in each person's heart... so "beliefs" shouldn't really enter into it anyway. God would know that equality under the law IS the law (at least it's supposed to be, anyway... with this ruling there can be no equality so long as people are allowed to discriminate). The Bible also says that God's law trumps man's law when man's law violates God's law. Acts 5:27-29 demonstrates this: And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest questioned them, saying, “We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man's blood upon us.” But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men. The apostles were charged to stop preaching the gospel but since that contradicts God's commands, they must follow God. Christians are directed to follow man's law since leaders are appointed by God but that ends when it conflicts with God's law. And if a law came down like... homosexual sex is required twice a year by everyone regardless of sexual preference (or something equally against "God's law")... then that might be applicable. This specific case was about creating words on a web page and other cases were about drizzling icing in the shape of words on a cake. There's no violation of God's law there. |
|
|
|
Post by Sapphire on Jul 5, 2023 21:08:06 GMT -5
The Bible also says that God's law trumps man's law when man's law violates God's law. Acts 5:27-29 demonstrates this: And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest questioned them, saying, “We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man's blood upon us.” But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men. The apostles were charged to stop preaching the gospel but since that contradicts God's commands, they must follow God. Christians are directed to follow man's law since leaders are appointed by God but that ends when it conflicts with God's law. And if a law came down like... homosexual sex is required twice a year by everyone regardless of sexual preference (or something equally against "God's law")... then that might be applicable. This specific case was about creating words on a web page and other cases were about drizzling icing in the shape of words on a cake. There's no violation of God's law there. It is if those words are against God's law. |
|
|
|
Post by RichardInTN on Jul 5, 2023 23:22:37 GMT -5
And if a law came down like... homosexual sex is required twice a year by everyone regardless of sexual preference (or something equally against "God's law")... then that might be applicable. This specific case was about creating words on a web page and other cases were about drizzling icing in the shape of words on a cake. There's no violation of God's law there. It is if those words are against God's law. I don't recall any Bible passages that state "Thou shalt not write things" only "thou shalt not DO things". I religiously believe that no person should drive an EV... but I would still help someone out if their EV had a flat. |
|
|
|
Post by Sapphire on Jul 6, 2023 11:07:23 GMT -5
It is if those words are against God's law. I don't recall any Bible passages that state "Thou shalt not write things" only "thou shalt not DO things". I religiously believe that no person should drive an EV... but I would still help someone out if their EV had a flat. Writing is doing. Writing requires a person to take up an implement and use it to create something, ergo doing something. That writing doesn't magically appear. |
|
|
|
Post by RichardInTN on Jul 6, 2023 23:03:17 GMT -5
I don't recall any Bible passages that state "Thou shalt not write things" only "thou shalt not DO things". I religiously believe that no person should drive an EV... but I would still help someone out if their EV had a flat. Writing is doing. Writing requires a person to take up an implement and use it to create something, ergo doing something. That writing doesn't magically appear. Writing is doing writing... yes. Writing "Mr. and Mr. Joe Smith" on a cake or a website is not DOING homosexual sex. It's kind of like what Paul said about Pagan rituals, basically (paraphrased) "Go, but don't believe in it, eat the meat but know that it's not anything but meat." One can acknowledge the legality of a non-religiously-sanctioned union while still faithfully believing that it's not a REAL (for their beliefs) union. |
|
|
|
Post by Sapphire on Jul 12, 2023 10:09:58 GMT -5
Writing is doing. Writing requires a person to take up an implement and use it to create something, ergo doing something. That writing doesn't magically appear. Writing is doing writing... yes. Writing "Mr. and Mr. Joe Smith" on a cake or a website is not DOING homosexual sex. It's kind of like what Paul said about Pagan rituals, basically (paraphrased) " Go, but don't believe in it, eat the meat but know that it's not anything but meat." One can acknowledge the legality of a non-religiously-sanctioned union while still faithfully believing that it's not a REAL (for their beliefs) union. That concept goes far deeper than what you've written. It's a matter of conscience. In Acts, Paul also writes to the Gentiles that it's better to abstain from anything that could give the appearance of idol worship in the name of harmony with the Jews. Homosexual marriage is a sin. A Christian baker writing a message in support of it is sinful as it violates their conscience. |
|
|
|
Post by RichardInTN on Jul 12, 2023 22:51:39 GMT -5
Writing is doing writing... yes. Writing "Mr. and Mr. Joe Smith" on a cake or a website is not DOING homosexual sex. It's kind of like what Paul said about Pagan rituals, basically (paraphrased) " Go, but don't believe in it, eat the meat but know that it's not anything but meat." One can acknowledge the legality of a non-religiously-sanctioned union while still faithfully believing that it's not a REAL (for their beliefs) union. That concept goes far deeper than what you've written. It's a matter of conscience. In Acts, Paul also writes to the Gentiles that it's better to abstain from anything that could give the appearance of idol worship in the name of harmony with the Jews. Homosexual marriage is a sin. A Christian baker writing a message in support of it is sinful as it violates their conscience. I don't see how "writing words that have no meaning" (which is what words in support of an unsanctioned 'union' would be) can violate one's conscience. Regarding Paul's "better to abstain"... I noticed that it doesn't say "required to abstain". I mean, it's better to not slam your hand in the car door... but doing so won't condemn you to hell. *Note: I'm not saying that anyone else's beliefs are wrong... I'm just putting my personal beliefs out there. |
|
