Another idiot lib governor
- Thread starter WVPATX
- Start date
Re: Do you want transcripts?
No, the general gist will suffice.
I was surprised to hear you say God talks back. I expect you talking with no response, like "God, I have a tough project at work this week, please help me get through it, and my brother is having marital woes so please help him with that and let me do whatever I can to help him." Stuff like that. But when you say he talks back it makes me think it's a conversation, which is much more intriguing.
No, the general gist will suffice.
I was surprised to hear you say God talks back. I expect you talking with no response, like "God, I have a tough project at work this week, please help me get through it, and my brother is having marital woes so please help him with that and let me do whatever I can to help him." Stuff like that. But when you say he talks back it makes me think it's a conversation, which is much more intriguing.
You are free to . . . .
pretend that your belief in a talking sky friend does not constitute religious faith. But unfortunately for you (and fortunately for the rest of us), words still mean things.
pretend that your belief in a talking sky friend does not constitute religious faith. But unfortunately for you (and fortunately for the rest of us), words still mean things.
Totally different laws....
Connecticut AND the US laws are about government and religious institutions. Indiana also applies to private businesses.
Not to mention Connecticut also has laws to prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Connecticut AND the US laws are about government and religious institutions. Indiana also applies to private businesses.
Not to mention Connecticut also has laws to prevent discrimination based on sexual orientation.
glad that worked out for you . . .
and I guess you should consider yourself lucky to be living in the era you do rather than one where such lines are not as clearly defined and laid out for people in your situation.
(irony apparently isn't obvious on this one?)
and I guess you should consider yourself lucky to be living in the era you do rather than one where such lines are not as clearly defined and laid out for people in your situation.
(irony apparently isn't obvious on this one?)
Re: Totally different laws....
Under Hobby Lobby vs. Burwell, the Supreme Court defined private business as an individual. So your first point is moot. Secondly, Connecticut's anti-discrimination laws are subject to religious exemptions under its RFRA.
Under Hobby Lobby vs. Burwell, the Supreme Court defined private business as an individual. So your first point is moot. Secondly, Connecticut's anti-discrimination laws are subject to religious exemptions under its RFRA.
Re: Totally different laws....
That brief written by libs makes no mention that I could find regarding the Connecticut law. As for Hobby Lobby vs. Burwell, the Supreme Court clearly held that private companies have the same rights as individuals, thus deciding for Hobby Lobby in that case.
I can send you analyses written by conservatives that demonstrate no discernable difference between existing federal and state laws already on the books.
More broadly, Malloy clearly stepped in it since Connecticut has the very same law on the books.
That brief written by libs makes no mention that I could find regarding the Connecticut law. As for Hobby Lobby vs. Burwell, the Supreme Court clearly held that private companies have the same rights as individuals, thus deciding for Hobby Lobby in that case.
I can send you analyses written by conservatives that demonstrate no discernable difference between existing federal and state laws already on the books.
More broadly, Malloy clearly stepped in it since Connecticut has the very same law on the books.
To differing degrees, yes . . .
this can sometimes be true. But I think the stakes get risen considerably depending on the object in question and in how the practice is used. I.e., there is a big difference between having faith in the unchanging *certainty* of beliefs vs. faith as a place-holder until additional evidence is uncovered or information is more fully developed and understood. Let's not pretend these are exactly the same things. At a minimum, the second usage leaves open the possibility for revision or outright reversal of beliefs based on new information.
this can sometimes be true. But I think the stakes get risen considerably depending on the object in question and in how the practice is used. I.e., there is a big difference between having faith in the unchanging *certainty* of beliefs vs. faith as a place-holder until additional evidence is uncovered or information is more fully developed and understood. Let's not pretend these are exactly the same things. At a minimum, the second usage leaves open the possibility for revision or outright reversal of beliefs based on new information.
come on . . .
you can't see that T.H.E., in the vast diversity of human culture on earth belongs to the one group of people who have elucidated with certainty all of the definitive messages of the Bible?
(cue the joke about all the Baptists in heaven living in a windowless house, because the angels are content to let them believe they are the only ones there).
you can't see that T.H.E., in the vast diversity of human culture on earth belongs to the one group of people who have elucidated with certainty all of the definitive messages of the Bible?
(cue the joke about all the Baptists in heaven living in a windowless house, because the angels are content to let them believe they are the only ones there).
Similar threads
