Jason Bourne wrote:So if the Church held to that standard as far as the Church not sanctioning gay marriage for Church members but did not work to impose that view on the rest of society is it bigotry then?
Yes, but like us all, the Church has the constitutional right to be a collective bigot without fear of government interference
Really? But was not potential government interference implied with the priesthood ban?
So if gay marriage is legal and the Church denied membership and priesthood to gays will they then be accused of bigotry?
Yes, but the Church has the constitutional right to be a bigot, just like we all do.
But in such a case the Church would still refuse to recognize gay marriage as well as deny membership to openly practicing gays. Would this act which you think is bigotry lead to pressure and threat of sanctions against is (like the days of polygamy) unless it changed? I think this is one thing the church fears.
Yes, but like us all, the Church has the constitutional right to be a collective bigot without fear of government interference
Really? But was not potential government interference implied with the priesthood ban?
There were rumors of the IRS taking away the Church's tax exempt status, but the Church has always denied this as a reason for the ban's being revoked. But even if the Church lost the tax-exempt status (a gov't-granted benefit) it would still be free to discriminate based on race (which it did for nearly 150 years).
Yes, but the Church has the constitutional right to be a bigot, just like we all do.
But in such a case the Church would still refuse to recognize gay marriage as well as deny membership to openly practicing gays. Would this act which you think is bigotry lead to pressure and threat of sanctions against is (like the days of polygamy) unless it changed? I think this is one thing the church fears.
I don't think so, as a practical matter, because religion in general is against gays (that wasn't necessarily the case with blacks and polygamists). Besides, I don't know of any divorced Roman Catholic who has been able to force the Catholic Church to marry him or her a second time. Religion can discriminate all they want (the tax exempt issue is another matter altogether, since it involves a government-sanctioned benefit -- In other words, even if a religion lost its gov't-granted tax-exempt status, it is still free to discriminate).
EDITED TO CLARIFY: Religion was generally against polygamy in the 1880's (which was not case with blacks in the 1970's). But I still think that religion hates gays much more so than it did polygamists.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
California has a long history of passing initiatives which strip persons of one civil right or another. Some day victims of murders will be stripped of their right to see murderers put to death.
Sorry. but this is not a fundamental constitutional right. Keep trying ....
I am still convinced that the 16th amendment giving the government the ability to levy an income tax was taking away a constitutional right. The constitution previous to that point implicitly granted the right for one to enjoy their own property, in this case specifically their income. With the amendment that right was taken away and the government can now take away your income, your property and the right to enjoy such property as you see fit.
Jason Bourne wrote:I am still convinced that the 16th amendment giving the government the ability to levy an income tax was taking away a constitutional right. The constitution previous to that point implicitly granted the right for one to enjoy their own property, in this case specifically their income. With the amendment that right was taken away and the government can now take away your income, your property and the right to enjoy such property as you see fit.
Yeah, well, government services ain't free.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
Jason Bourne wrote:I am still convinced that the 16th amendment giving the government the ability to levy an income tax was taking away a constitutional right.
I don't know of any recognized by any court.
With the amendment that right was taken away and the government can now take away your income, your property and the right to enjoy such property as you see fit.
I guess anything the gov't does to regulate its citizens could be characterized as taking income, property, freedom, etc., but the question is whether that "taking" involves a fundamental constitutional right, and I don't believe any court has recognized that we have the fundamental constitutional right to be free from taxation.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."
-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
Rollo Tomasi wrote: Besides, I don't know of any divorced Roman Catholic who has been able to force the Catholic Church to marry him or her a second time.
Actually, many Catholics are abe to marry a second time. They just find ways to declare the 1st marriage null and void. Kinda like rewriting history. So the 2nd counts as a 1st.
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.
Yeah I guess that the initiative overturning the Cal Supreme Courts ruling that the death penalty was unconstitutional didn't deprive anybody of a fundamental right. Into the gas chamber they go.
Nor was the initiative that stripped immigrants of rights to govt services a deprivation of anything. Initiatives are constantly restricting civil rights in California.
rcrocket wrote:Nor was the initiative that stripped immigrants of rights to govt services a deprivation of anything. Initiatives are constantly restricting civil rights in California.
Were these legal immigrants? Just curious.
“I was hooked from the start,” Snoop Dogg said. “We talked about the purpose of life, played Mousetrap, and ate brownies. The kids thought it was off the hook, for real.”
What does it matter? You, sitting there in your whitebread suburb and office in a state of the United States probably robbed from Mexico in 1849 when the U.S. invented a provocation (Gulf of Tonkin, anybody) to invade Mexico.
With the amendment that right was taken away and the government can now take away your income, your property and the right to enjoy such property as you see fit.
I guess anything the gov't does to regulate its citizens could be characterized as taking income, property, freedom, etc., but the question is whether that "taking" involves a fundamental constitutional right, and I don't believe any court has recognized that we have the fundamental constitutional right to be free from taxation.
Since when does it take a court to determine what is a fundamental constitutional right before it becomes one? The simple fact that the political leaders of the day knew it would take an amendment to levy the tax shows there was in implicit right to not be taxed in this way. In fact, the constitution really forbid it prior to the 16th amendment.