Smart Republican

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Everything should be judged on its merit, but this isn't an academic exercise. Should we go back to the days where a black person was denied the same services? The only big difference is that it's not always obvious if someone was born gay.

-spence

I don't believe there are any religions that specifically say that being black is wrong.
Why must you always go down this path?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by buckman

I don't believe there are any religions that specifically say that being black is wrong.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No law says you can't start one....

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

I don't believe there are any religions that specifically say that being black is wrong.
Why must you always go down this path?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Because it's a good analogy.

And many religions are certainly looked at as being racist, even if it's not clearly spelled out. Hell, even Jesus never clearly called out gays.

If you can interpret anything how you'd like and demonstrate it's a deeply held conviction...what's stopping someone?

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Because it's a good analogy.

The analogy is irrelevant. It is used to allow government intrusion into rights of free association, into ownership of personal property, of freedom of speech, of freedom of religion, as well as a major incursion into the whole constitutional process. Please see my post above this for clarification. Extra Government control is not necessary here if constitutional system is followed.

And many religions are certainly looked at as being racist, even if it's not clearly spelled out. Hell, even Jesus never clearly called out gays.

Again, irrelevant to the constitutional order. Extra government intervention and control in this matter causes less freedom and actually less equality before the law.

If you can interpret anything how you'd like and demonstrate it's a deeply held conviction...what's stopping someone?

-spence

Stopping "someone" from doing what? The Constitution, if followed, stops someone from denying its guarantees.

And if you object to interpreting anything how you'd like and demonstrate your deeply held conviction that your interpretation is correct, how do you not object to progressive jurisprudence which does exactly that.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The analogy is irrelevant. It is used to allow government intrusion into rights of free association, into ownership of personal property, of freedom of speech, of freedom of religion, as well as a major incursion into the whole constitutional process. Please see my post above this for clarification. Extra Government control is not necessary here if constitutional system is followed.

I read your post. It took a while. Here's a summary.

• Slavery came out of left field and surprised the process built by slave owning Founders.
  
• They tried to fix it all up with the Civil War but the slaves and libs wanted even more.
  
• Had we just let the black community to themselves, they would have built gleaming cities and slowly -- and in a Constitutionally acceptable manner -- blended into the American fabric...perhaps as early as the 23rd century.
  
• But a bunch of racists (i.e. anti-Jim Crow zealots) rushed the process via social engineering.

Again, irrelevant to the constitutional order. Extra government intervention and control in this matter causes less freedom and actually less equality before the law.

Considering how far our society has moved in terms of race and more recently gay acceptance I'd say that those holding what the majority feels are bigoted positions are certainly less free.

Well done Government, well done.

Stopping "someone" from doing what? The Constitution, if followed, stops someone from denying its guarantees.

And if you object to interpreting anything how you'd like and demonstrate your deeply held conviction that your interpretation is correct, how do you not object to progressive jurisprudence which does exactly that.

Progressive jurisprudence isn't an open book, like I said, everything has to be evaluated on its merit. Just because you can change doesn't mean you must change. With the inverse conservatives would never be able to evolve either...

-spence