Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Townhall)   It's one thing to disregard the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has even disregarded the bible   ( townhall.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, Supreme Court, Chief Justice Warren Burger, Justice Antonin Scalia, moral choices, concurring opinions, Western civilizations  
•       •       •

2356 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Dec 2013 at 12:28 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



76 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-12-11 10:17:17 AM  
Oh no, not again...
 
2013-12-11 10:20:25 AM  
If the U.S. government can seize the power to force Christians to act against their consciences, what power can it be denied?

Freedom Happiness: government prohibiting women from controlling their own bodies

Aparteidslaverysocialism: government requiring employers to provide health insurance to their employees
 
2013-12-11 10:22:34 AM  
Good
 
2013-12-11 10:54:55 AM  
Your freedom of religion ends at my/my SO's uterus.
 
2013-12-11 11:02:46 AM  
FTC:

Marie150 Wrote:2 hour ago (9:00 AM)
Gay bars should be forced to hire Christians as bartenders. And allow the Christian bartenders to preach the Good News of Jesus Christ to their customers all day long.

I would go to gay bars if that was the case. That would be hilarious. Then watch the bartenders refuse to serve, be taken to court and forced to serve the gay folk, then find themselves trapped in a nightmare they created for themselves where they have to work there, and not refuse to serve people.
 
2013-12-11 11:07:33 AM  
If your business/college/hospital is operating in that marketplace, it plays by those rules.

If the Supreme Court rules that laws do not apply to certain groups because of their faith, you're welcome to join Gonz' Big Ol' Church of Capitalism. The Ten Commandments start like this:

1. Anyone who pays any form of tax is going to Hell. Money is the root of all evil, after all, and we don't want an evil Government.
2. Wasting time is a mortal sin. Therefore, anyone voluntarily following a speed limit is condemning their soul.
3. You must take Communion at any point you see fit. The holiest of Communions follow the Reinheitsgebot.

I've got room for 7 more. C'mon, Scalia, make me wealthy!
 
2013-12-11 11:10:09 AM  

Slaxl: FTC:

Marie150 Wrote:2 hour ago (9:00 AM)
Gay bars should be forced to hire Christians as bartenders. And allow the Christian bartenders to preach the Good News of Jesus Christ to their customers all day long.


This just solidifies my position that Republicans should have to be pre-approved before making analogies about anything having to do with law or politics.
 
2013-12-11 11:36:46 AM  
Bless their poor, dear, sweet hearts on their thoughts on the Supreme Court, but they try so very hard, don't they?
 
2013-12-11 11:40:18 AM  
For example, our Founding Fathers believed all men are endowed by their creator with an inalienable right to life -- a principal derived not only from natural law, but also from the commandment thou shall not kill.

Since when is Townhall against killing?
 
2013-12-11 12:01:29 PM  
Well, I guess the Christian thing to do would be to forgive them. Which means it's probably the last thing these people will do.
 
2013-12-11 12:02:42 PM  
In 1986, in Bowers v. Hardwick, the Supreme Court turned back a challenge to the Georgia law that prohibited same-sex sodomy.

It makes me happy that one of the guys in our defining buttsecks case is named Hardwick.
 
2013-12-11 12:09:58 PM  
Notice they aren't called the Supreme Clergy.
 
2013-12-11 12:12:00 PM  

Slaxl: FTC:

Marie150 Wrote:2 hour ago (9:00 AM)
Gay bars should be forced to hire Christians as bartenders. And allow the Christian bartenders to preach the Good News of Jesus Christ to their customers all day long.

I would go to gay bars if that was the case. That would be hilarious. Then watch the bartenders refuse to serve, be taken to court and forced to serve the gay folk, then find themselves trapped in a nightmare they created for themselves where they have to work there, and not refuse to serve people.


Sales would be easier as most of the bartenders would already know their clientele on a first-name basis. Perhaps not the first name the clientele wishes to be used in that environment.

"Hey, Clete! Does your wife know you're here?"
(nervously) "Who's Clete? I'm Ganymede! YOU DON'T KNOW ME!" (pause) "Meet me in the bathroom?"
 
2013-12-11 12:12:38 PM  

Doctor Funkenstein: In 1986, in Bowers v. Hardwick, the Supreme Court turned back a challenge to the Georgia law that prohibited same-sex sodomy.

It makes me happy that one of the guys in our defining buttsecks case is named Hardwick.


I can't stop reading it as  Boners v. Hardick.My maturity level is through the roof.
 
2013-12-11 12:22:01 PM  
Always and forever.
 
2013-12-11 12:22:45 PM  

BKITU: Always and forever.


Threw out my image. =P Trying again:

img.fark.net
Always and forever.
 
2013-12-11 12:28:20 PM  

Bareefer Obonghit: Doctor Funkenstein: In 1986, in Bowers v. Hardwick, the Supreme Court turned back a challenge to the Georgia law that prohibited same-sex sodomy.

It makes me happy that one of the guys in our defining buttsecks case is named Hardwick.

I can't stop reading it as  Boners v. Hardick.My maturity level is through the roof.


I would have loved to been the attorney for that one.  We would have lost, but it would have been fun.

Judge:  "And this is Mr. Hardwick?"

Me: "Show him, yo."

*zip*thud*

Me:  "How about that shiat?  Who wants to make a motion now?  Would the stenographer please, ahem, log that into the record?  Hey, what's with the dude with the taser?"
 
2013-12-11 12:31:50 PM  
I'll post this in every thread where it's relevant:
I wish conservatives would regard the 1st amendment with the same reverence as they do the 2nd.
 
2013-12-11 12:34:23 PM  

Flab: For example, our Founding Fathers believed all men are endowed by their creator with an inalienable right to life -- a principal derived not only from natural law, but also from the commandment thou shall not kill.

Since when is Townhall against killing?



The number of times the Christian god was okay with, allowed, or even commanded to kill could fill a book.
 
2013-12-11 12:34:43 PM  
Stop imposing your religious views on the rest of us.
 
2013-12-11 12:34:47 PM  
Your freedom to oppress has been destroyed. Go start your own country if you don't like it
 
2013-12-11 12:37:13 PM  
Oh geez, it was as dumb as I feared. I KNEW it was townhall and I still thought their would be something worth arguing about. Look, selective quotes does not make the case that the bible is a precedent setting work for american governance dumbass.
 
2013-12-11 12:43:57 PM  
Imagine how exhausting it must be to be perpetually outraged.
 
2013-12-11 12:46:31 PM  

Gonz: If your business/college/hospital is operating in that marketplace, it plays by those rules.

If the Supreme Court rules that laws do not apply to certain groups because of their faith, you're welcome to join Gonz' Big Ol' Church of Capitalism. The Ten Commandments start like this:

1. Anyone who pays any form of tax is going to Hell. Money is the root of all evil, after all, and we don't want an evil Government.
2. Wasting time is a mortal sin. Therefore, anyone voluntarily following a speed limit is condemning their soul.
3. You must take Communion at any point you see fit. The holiest of Communions follow the Reinheitsgebot.

I've got room for 7 more. C'mon, Scalia, make me wealthy!


I had posted similar comments in an earlier thread on this subject, only I called the religion that a corporation may deeply and sincerely hold, "The Church of Ayn Rand," whose scriptures were revealed unto her through direct inspiration of the Holy Galt.
 
2013-12-11 12:49:30 PM  

Lord_Baull: The number of times the Christian god was okay with, allowed, or even commanded to kill could fill a book.


We do know that in the "original", the word used is closer to "murder", yes? Good.

kronicfeld: If the U.S. government can seize the power to force Christians to act against their consciences, what power can it be denied?


(I know that's from TFA, not your words). I don't know, the same way Quakers were "forced" to support the US' war effort even though they were morally opposed to the war?
 
2013-12-11 12:49:46 PM  
christianshelphelpwerebeingoppressed.jpg

/oblig
 
2013-12-11 12:50:31 PM  
Is the author not aware that appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy, or is the author relying upon fallacious reasoning due to an inability to justify an intellectually bankrupt position?
 
2013-12-11 12:53:47 PM  

Slaxl: FTC:

Marie150 Wrote:2 hour ago (9:00 AM)
Gay bars should be forced to hire Christians as bartenders. And allow the Christian bartenders to preach the Good News of Jesus Christ to their customers all day long.

I would go to gay bars if that was the case. That would be hilarious. Then watch the bartenders refuse to serve, be taken to court and forced to serve the gay folk, then find themselves trapped in a nightmare they created for themselves where they have to work there, and not refuse to serve people.


And Marie would march right into that bar to share her love of God. She would walk right up to the biggest, most buxom lesbian and spread the word of God, Oh God, Oh God.

How come when the argue about "The Gays" it sounds like the plot to a Russ Meyers film. I was a lesbian for Jesus
 
2013-12-11 12:54:08 PM  

Fark It: Your freedom of religion ends at my/my SO's uterus.


A a uterus-having individual, I's like it to end a good bit farther away than my uterus.
 
2013-12-11 12:55:02 PM  
i.imgur.com
Stop trying to use the founding fathers as an excuse for your outdated views.
 
2013-12-11 12:56:19 PM  

Bareefer Obonghit: Doctor Funkenstein: In 1986, in Bowers v. Hardwick, the Supreme Court turned back a challenge to the Georgia law that prohibited same-sex sodomy.

It makes me happy that one of the guys in our defining buttsecks case is named Hardwick.

I can't stop reading it as  Boners v. Hardick.My maturity level is through the roof.


That's preferable to how I read it.  BoweRs... not BoweLs... phew.
 
2013-12-11 12:57:19 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Lord_Baull: The number of times the Christian god was okay with, allowed, or even commanded to kill could fill a book.

We do know that in the "original", the word used is closer to "murder", yes? Good.



I was using it in the same context as a Pro-lifer; kill and murder are interchangable.
 
2013-12-11 12:57:43 PM  
A townhall article...let's see if I can sum it up without even clicking....
i.imgur.com
 
2013-12-11 01:00:08 PM  

Dimensio: Is the author not aware that appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy, or is the author relying upon fallacious reasoning due to an inability to justify an intellectually bankrupt position?


Yes.
 
2013-12-11 01:06:07 PM  

Doctor Funkenstein: Bareefer Obonghit: Doctor Funkenstein: In 1986, in Bowers v. Hardwick, the Supreme Court turned back a challenge to the Georgia law that prohibited same-sex sodomy.

It makes me happy that one of the guys in our defining buttsecks case is named Hardwick.

I can't stop reading it as  Boners v. Hardick.My maturity level is through the roof.

I would have loved to been the attorney for that one.  We would have lost, but it would have been fun.

Judge:  "And this is Mr. Hardwick?"

Me: "Show him, yo."

*zip*thud*

Me:  "How about that shiat?  Who wants to make a motion now?  Would the stenographer please, ahem, log that into the record?  Hey, what's with the dude with the taser?"


You people all related to Thomas?
 
2013-12-11 01:07:22 PM  

kronicfeld: If the U.S. government can seize the power to force Christians to act against their consciences, what power can it be denied?

Freedom Happiness: government prohibiting women from controlling their own bodies

Aparteidslaverysocialism: government requiring employers to provide health insurance to their employees



Translation:  "If the U.S. Government has the power to pass laws that I don't like, then where does it end?"
 
2013-12-11 01:07:23 PM  
My mom is part of the congregation at the local First Baptist Church.   They have had an open door policy since the 90's.  the congregation contributed money to the Pro Marriage equality initiative in Washington State and the Pastor performed a same sex wedding on the morning of the first day it was legal.  Mom says about 1/3 of the congregation is same sex couples and their kids.   I guess I could ask her to find out if any of them are bartenders.  Gay Christian Bartenders.
 
2013-12-11 01:10:10 PM  
Okay, you guys at Townhall might want to sit down for a bit.

You sitting down? Good. Now listen carefully.

START READING THE BIBLE.

That's it. Start reading. The whole damn thing, not the Namby-Pamby Tea Party sanitized version that only contains the New Testament and Psalms. Read the whole damn thing, including those naughty bits in Genesis. Get some context. See WHY those laws were put there in the first place during that thirty year camping trip out of Egypt. Start understanding the history. Then, once you're done, see how that all connects with little Baby Jesus coming down and saying God is more than just following the rules and how everyone has farked up (yes, even those darn homosexuals) and needs a proper reintroduction for living faithfully in a cruel world, and that sin doesn't just involve eating fetuses, sodomy, banning guns and wringing of the hands when anyone uses a swear word.

You did all that? Good. Now, remember that little part where Jesus says that there's gonna be persecution involved in this gig? Sure it'll range from mild inconvenience to getting you and your family murdered to death, but the dude wasn't so naive to say that this religion was going to solve all your problems. History has plenty of examples to show that from the Crusades to the Inquisition to the later Reformations and sectarian violences in recent ages. Waving a cross in front of your country ain't solving anything, and all the smarmiest snark and mouth-breathing home-schooled cherry picking bible thumping is not going to win anyone over faster.

So the Court is giving those LGBT some protection? GOOD! Gay marriage was all about semantics anyway. The Court won't repeal Roe vs. Wade? GOOD! That law was mostly about freedom of privacy anyway, so ya might want to rethink that strategy. The mean ol' government won't let Christians keep some of their tax exempt statuses when they go all out political? DOUBLEPLUSGOOD! Stop hiding behind Baby Jesus and pony up like the rest of the Americans. And for God's sake, act like adults while doing it!

/yes I mad but I'll get over it
 
2013-12-11 01:11:11 PM  
Marie150 Wrote:2 hour ago (9:00 AM)
Gay bars should be forced to hire Christians as bartenders. And allow the Christian bartenders to preach the Good News of Jesus Christ to their customers all day long.


Hey Padre! Who's dick do I have to suck around here to get another drink?
 
2013-12-11 01:16:03 PM  
FTFA:

"Under Obamacare, the administration has issued a regulation that requires almost all health care plans in the United States to cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives. The latter includes both abortion-inducing drugs and intrauterine devices."

I wasn't aware insurance companies, which are all corporate entities, are capable of having their religious beliefs violated.  Apparently the bible says that corporations are people.

Also, I love that the article dives head first into an argument that states should be able to throw two consenting adults in jail for having oral, anal, or gay sex.  It's a pretty good example of his actual argument being "when I say that the government shouldn't be allowed to force christians to violate their religious beliefs, I really mean that the government should throw any person who violates my personal religious beliefs in jail."

Oh yeah and finally, his vague references to the founding fathers reminded me of this old reliable standby:

http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-passionate-defender-of-wha t- he-imagines-c,2849/
 
2013-12-11 01:18:09 PM  
Good.
 
2013-12-11 01:22:17 PM  

rjakobi: Okay, you guys at Townhall might want to sit down for a bit.

You sitting down? Good. Now listen carefully.

START READING THE BIBLE.

That's it. Start reading. The whole damn thing, not the Namby-Pamby Tea Party sanitized version that only contains the New Testament and Psalms. Read the whole damn thing, including those naughty bits in Genesis. Get some context. See WHY those laws were put there in the first place during that thirty year camping trip out of Egypt. Start understanding the history. Then, once you're done, see how that all connects with little Baby Jesus coming down and saying God is more than just following the rules and how everyone has farked up (yes, even those darn homosexuals) and needs a proper reintroduction for living faithfully in a cruel world, and that sin doesn't just involve eating fetuses, sodomy, banning guns and wringing of the hands when anyone uses a swear word.

You did all that? Good. Now, remember that little part where Jesus says that there's gonna be persecution involved in this gig? Sure it'll range from mild inconvenience to getting you and your family murdered to death, but the dude wasn't so naive to say that this religion was going to solve all your problems. History has plenty of examples to show that from the Crusades to the Inquisition to the later Reformations and sectarian violences in recent ages. Waving a cross in front of your country ain't solving anything, and all the smarmiest snark and mouth-breathing home-schooled cherry picking bible thumping is not going to win anyone over faster.

So the Court is giving those LGBT some protection? GOOD! Gay marriage was all about semantics anyway. The Court won't repeal Roe vs. Wade? GOOD! That law was mostly about freedom of privacy anyway, so ya might want to rethink that strategy. The mean ol' government won't let Christians keep some of their tax exempt statuses when they go all out political? DOUBLEPLUSGOOD! Stop hiding behind Baby Jesus and pony ...


Yup.  All of the political religious right's arguments boil down to them complaining that our government is not run as a theocracy.  My favorite part about that is that the religious right also constantly fear-mongers about "sharia law," as if a government under islamic law is any different in substance from the religious right's dream of government under christian law.
 
2013-12-11 01:23:11 PM  
I'll post this from another Hobby Lobby/Supreme Court related thread:

From a Supreme court case regarding the Amish paying Social Security taxes for its employees in United States v. Lee (1982):

"Congress and the courts have been sensitive to the needs flowing from the Free Exercise Clause, but every person cannot be shielded from all the burdens incident to exercising every aspect of the right to practice religious beliefs. When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity. Granting an exemption... operates to impose the employer's religious faith on the employees."

This is an identical scenario, except with Social Security instead of health insurance, and this is the same court that upheld the Bowers decision championed by the article.
 
2013-12-11 01:33:21 PM  

Flab: For example, our Founding Fathers believed all men are endowed by their creator with an inalienable right to life -- a principal derived not only from natural law, but also from the commandment thou shall not kill.

Since when is Townhall against killing?


Well you know the Founding Fathers were against killing.  That's why they had that polite discussion with George III.
 
2013-12-11 01:38:39 PM  

DeaH: Fark It: Your freedom of religion ends at my/my SO's uterus.

A a uterus-having individual, I's like it to end a good bit farther away than my uterus.


Not a fan of the ultrasound rape-wands?
 
2013-12-11 01:49:52 PM  
 
2013-12-11 01:51:59 PM  
If your argument includes "The Bible says..." then you don't have an argument.
 
2013-12-11 01:55:55 PM  
I posted this in the comments section:

 If they are so concerned about the morality of it all then they should not hire sinners. The idea being that if they do get their way and change the law, there are still people on their payroll that will buy such drugs with the money they are paid. Therefore they will be contributing to the sin no matter what.
 
2013-12-11 02:02:18 PM  
www.bitlogic.com
 
2013-12-11 02:05:44 PM  

Zarquon's Flat Tire: If your argument includes "The Bible says..." then you don't have an argument.


I think it's a fine justification, for personal actions. It's not until "You must do X because the Bible says..." that it becomes a problem.
 
Displayed 50 of 76 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report