Common_Sense_Matters

Actually, there are no such adultery laws, other than of course bigamy, we are only allowed one wife (in many cases that may be too many, just ask any comedian about that), other than that, no other adultery laws in our laws.

As for a******n, there are circumstances where it MAY be the best thing to do, early term, life threatening, medical issues come to mind. You also seem to be discounting the possibility that a woman gets pregnant as a result of rape, how well does the aspirin between the knees method work in cases of rape? Are you trying to say that the woman has the choice to say no during a rape and that the rapist is going to concede her right to not be raped? Perhaps you are saying that rape can not result in pregnancy?

JoyV

Please study our constitution. It is NOT about our government protecting it people. That would only be the case if the government was granting permission to choose what religion you want to practice or not practice. This is NOT the case. The right is not granted by our government or constitution!!!! It is inalienable and GUARANTEED by our constitution.

What I would be ok with is for our constitution and bill of rights to be upheld. For our official to DEFEND our constitution as they swore in their oath of office. Making special provisions for or against specific religions is not only unnecessary, but can be a danger to our constitutionally guaranteed freedom.

No I would NOT be ok with American leadership deciding to add laws based on the Islamic faith!

JoyV

I agree!!!!

JoyV

The baker and florist cases were not brought against them for refusal to sell to gay couples or for a gay wedding. In both cases, not only were they being asked to create a work of art celebrating a gay marriage, they would have needed to be closely involved in the ceremony. Especially the florist as doing floral decorations for a wedding requires being on hand to freshen up the displays. And in each case, there were other artists or vendors the gay couples could have patronized.

Common_Sense_Matters

Ah, I was unaware of the laws the Democrats have enacted restricting certain people(s) from certain specific business establishments, Please feel free to post links to these laws so that I may be better informed. As for the businesses themselves, they DO have the right to refuse goods/services at their discretion IF providing such goods/services could potentially create issues with clients/staff (examples unruly arguments and/or fights) or if such individual has caused issues in the past, unruly arguments and/or fights, theft and/or refusal to pay for goods/services.

As for businesses that refuse goods/services to persons based on their own religious beliefs, we have anti-discrimination laws in place to protect the rights of EVERYONE. If they know of the potential that they MAY have to provide goods/services to those they do not wish to provide goods/services to, perhaps they should pick another profession that may not require them to. To be honest, denying such goods/services to anyone based solely on religious objections, it doesn't make good business sense, it detracts from potential current and future business. Would you condone someone's right to refuse goods/services to you if let's say you were Christian and they didn't like Christians?

Perhaps one should try starting a business that discriminates against Christians so that you can see just how stupid that argument really is. it is just about as stupid as the smoking ban on smoking in bars (I believe that MAY have been a Democrat supported bill but I could be wrong) as the largest majority of bar patrons either smoke regularly or typically only smoke when they are drinking. Knowing the statistics of how many bar patrons smoke, if you don't smoke and don't wish to be in the presence of cigarette/cigar/pipe smoke, perhaps you shouldn't take a job in a bar or go to any bar that isn't specifically a non-smoking bar.

Common_Sense_Matters

Yes, they perhaps should have utilized the services of another EQUALLY qualified vendor, I would have should someone refuse me their services, but then I can't see a reason someone would refuse me service as I am a straight, white, of somewhat progressed age (not a teenager prone to unruly behavior), male.

Had someone denied me goods/services, I would have taken my business elsewhere and would have encouraged others to do so as well.

Bcon

In the case of rape, if reported as it should be, when being examined by a physician, would the victim be given a d and c which would prevent a pregnancy?

Bcon

Nor any faith, that is a personal decision that is of no business of the government.

Common_Sense_Matters

The whole point for our Constitution was to guide our laws AND to protect our citizens from the abuses of power inherent in any government. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Our forefathers wanted us to have protections from abusive government, that was the whole point for our Revolution, to get us out from under the rule by the few over the masses. They wanted Americans to have a reasonable amount of control over the direction of our form of government, government WITH representation.

I also disagree with you on your assertion that the first amendment ISN'T to protect us from those codifying their religious beliefs into laws governing us as it was their intention to protect us from just such abuses. Allowing any lawmaker to add laws based solely on religion IS in fact allowing one individual to determine what faith we must follow as regardless of what religious principles they are codifying into our laws, that is the religion that they are forcing us to adhere to. I wouldn't think that basic principle would be so hard to understand but then I guess some are so set in their ways that they refuse to acknowledge anything contrary to their own beliefs. AS you seem so set in your ways that you can't see anything from any other perspective than what you choose to view it by, we shall have to agree to disagree.

It is just as fair to create laws based on the Islamic faith as it is to create laws based on Christian faith, what is good for the goose is also good for the gander.

Common_Sense_Matters

Precisely my point.

Common_Sense_Matters

Don't know what you mean by "a d and c"

Bcon

That is my point. In the small town adjacent to my own, a gay lesbian couple came from out of the area, to request matching gowns for their wedding. This boutique was known from articles in the local paper to be Christians who were known for their beliefs. When the boutique refused the order and recommended other venues, the whole affair was blown out of proportion, and the boutique actually went out of business. It was thought that the local homosexual activist had a hand in the whole affair to bring publicity to the gay causes he was promoting. So much for all inclusive.

Bcon

No one said that there were laws that discriminated against Christians. You have to know the instances that I am referring to or you must be completely unaware of the news happening around you. I am just refuting your premise of how open the democrat liberals are. There have been numerous cases, even involving public figures being attacked verbally. Starbucks refused service to a patron because he was wearing a MAGA hat. I am sure that news evaded you also. When was the last time you heard of a conservative establishment refusing service to someone because of their political beliefs? I am sorry, but your arguments for how endearing the Democratic Party is to everyone is complete unadulterated bullcrap.

Bcon

Dilation and curettage (D&C) is a procedure to remove tissue from inside your uterus. Doctors perform dilation and curettage to diagnose and treat certain uterine conditions — such as heavy bleeding — or to clear the uterine lining after a miscarriage or a******n

I am under the impression that this is standard procedure after a rape.

Common_Sense_Matters

You do know that Starbucks ISN'T owned by a Democrat right? It is a business with a board of directors that make the decisions related to the franchise and it's franchisees. You MAY be able to make the allegation that the board is comprised solely of Democrats but that is a pretty weak and somewhat of a difficult to prove/disprove statement. The latest ex-CEO though is an Independent so not sure how that plays with your narrative, not that you will drop such allegations as we KNOW it is ALWAYS the Democrat's fault, right? You never actually back your assumptions with any real facts so...

I should and may at my discretion, choose to just start ignoring your posts until you start backing your opinions with ANY facts at all. I don't see any point in my actually trying to back my comments with facts against someone that is too lazy to do the same.