Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst 1234567891011
Results 151 to 165 of 165

Thread: Trump laments immigration from 's---hole countries' in Oval Office negotiations

  1. #151
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Resting in Him
    Posts
    5,980

    Re: Trump laments immigration from 's---hole countries' in Oval Office negotiations

    Quote Originally Posted by Brother Mark View Post
    Many insisted on the bill of rights. One reason they did was because the states had state run religions and they didn't want the federal government to have a say in it, nor did they want to be persecuted by the government for their own religion.

    Thou shalt not murder is one religious command that we find in the state today, along with don't steal, don't bear false witness, etc. The 1st amendment was never meant to keep the church out of the state. What you are describing is the state getting involved in the church i.e. telling people they have to obey all the bible. That's the state getting involved in religion.
    The general morals of do not kill, steal ... that is found in most all religions ... and yes is pretty universal ... but again I disagree in Europe the Church used the State/Nation to tell people what to do ... the Church was supreme over the State/Nation ... and the Church had the State/Nation enforce that people obey the Churches interpretation of the bible ... in America the State/Nation was to be separate from the Church and not controlled by the Church so that people could worship how they determined to worship ...

    And not sure where you get that individual states of the United States had their own religion (like England) and the Federal Government was somehow supporting the right of individual states of the United States to have their own state sponsored religion.
    ***
    Lead me in Your truth and teach me,
    For You are the God of my salvation;
    On You I wait all the day.

    Psalms 25:5
    ***

  2. #152
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Chattanooga, TN
    Posts
    14,091

    Re: Trump laments immigration from 's---hole countries' in Oval Office negotiations

    Quote Originally Posted by BraveUlysesses View Post
    Okay you think about that, Then we talk about it.
    Will do. I lean towards it would be unconstitutional and violate the 14th amendment because it targeted a specific group to deny them a right granted to everyone else.

    I'm going to be honest here and say at this point and say that I'm really struggling with the question you posed to me. I think it is possible that the founders may very well agree that this is not how they envisioned or intended the government to work. That is hard enough to suss out but then I also have to be real about whether or not i think that matters and if such a position is justifiable. Its pretty hard but i am putting in the work.
    The reason it matters to me, is because if not, then it shows the power of the courts to rob us of what we had. The founders knew the dangers and often discussed it. If the federal government is much stronger than they intended, and taken over things they did not intend, without constitutional amendments, then some of us were robbed.

    One of the big problems I have with the current court is how they are concentrating power in the federal government and taking it away from states. One of the great things that has come from a Trump administration is that the left is finally seeing the wisdom in federalism. For many, many years, the courts and presidency has been an agent of change when it always should have been done through the legislature according to our constitution.
    Matt 9:13
    13 "But go and learn what this means: ' I DESIRE COMPASSION,AND NOT SACRIFICE,' for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
    NASU

  3. #153

    Re: Trump laments immigration from 's---hole countries' in Oval Office negotiations

    Quote Originally Posted by Brother Mark View Post
    The courts are currenlty compelling pharmacist to sell abortion pills or go out of business.
    I have no pity for a pharmacist that doesn't want to do his/her job. A pharmacist has a responsibility to you know, like be a pharmacist.


    Quote Originally Posted by Brother Mark View Post
    Custom cake makers to custom design a cake specifically for gay "marriage" and if they refuse, putting them out of business. Never mind the customer could have bought a birthday cake, or a standard wedding cake, or the pharmacist customer could go down the street to get an abortion pill.
    Why would you buy a birthday cake for your wedding? Like my fiancee would certainly murder me for that one.

    I am a bit ambivalent on this because honestly I wouldn't want any cake made by a person that didn't want to make one for me based on their feelings about who i'm marrying. Unlike the pharmacist a baker is not a medical professional so its not crucial that they follow standards of service at least not for the same reasons. The whole go somewhere else argument works only when there is somewhere else to go....but then you think people should just move states if they don't like the laws so. Actually that makes me think, if it is not an undue burden to go to another store or another state then I can't imagine why making a cake is a bridge too far.

  4. #154

    Re: Trump laments immigration from 's---hole countries' in Oval Office negotiations

    Quote Originally Posted by Brother Mark View Post
    Will do. I lean towards it would be unconstitutional and violate the 14th amendment because it targeted a specific group to deny them a right granted to everyone else.
    Okay i'll let that crystallize for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brother Mark View Post
    The reason it matters to me, is because if not, then it shows the power of the courts to rob us of what we had. The founders knew the dangers and often discussed it. If the federal government is much stronger than they intended, and taken over things they did not intend, without constitutional amendments, then some of us were robbed.

    One of the big problems I have with the current court is how they are concentrating power in the federal government and taking it away from states. One of the great things that has come from a Trump administration is that the left is finally seeing the wisdom in federalism. For many, many years, the courts and presidency has been an agent of change when it always should have been done through the legislature according to our constitution.
    I see, great I will consider this along with my own thoughts and research.

  5. #155
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Chattanooga, TN
    Posts
    14,091

    Re: Trump laments immigration from 's---hole countries' in Oval Office negotiations

    Quote Originally Posted by BraveUlysesses View Post
    I have no pity for a pharmacist that doesn't want to do his/her job. A pharmacist has a responsibility to you know, like be a pharmacist.
    You consider killing babies part of the job description of pharmicist and pharmacy owners? And that pharmacy owner should have to choose between his lively hood and murdering babies? Really?

    Why would you buy a birthday cake for your wedding? Like my fiancee would certainly murder me for that one.
    Not for a wedding. For a birthday. The government is trying to force a custom cake maker to make a customized cake for a gay "wedding". That is way too much power for the government. The owner of the bakery said he was willing to provide them with a cake, but not a custom ordered cake. Not good enough for the government.

    I am a bit ambivalent on this because honestly I wouldn't want any cake made by a person that didn't want to make one for me based on their feelings about who i'm marrying. Unlike the pharmacist a baker is not a medical professional so its not crucial that they follow standards of service at least not for the same reasons. The whole go somewhere else argument works only when there is somewhere else to go....but then you think people should just move states if they don't like the laws so. Actually that makes me think, if it is not an undue burden to go to another store or another state then I can't imagine why making a cake is a bridge too far.
    The government thinks the baker and pharmicist should go against their religious conscience, which in my opinion, is a violation of their 1st amendment rights.
    Matt 9:13
    13 "But go and learn what this means: ' I DESIRE COMPASSION,AND NOT SACRIFICE,' for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
    NASU

  6. #156

    Re: Trump laments immigration from 's---hole countries' in Oval Office negotiations

    Quote Originally Posted by Brother Mark View Post
    You consider killing babies part of the job description of pharmicist and pharmacy owners? And that pharmacy owner should have to choose between his lively hood and murdering babies? Really?
    no, the job is to provide pharmaceuticals. If you cant do that , you should not be a pharmacist.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brother Mark View Post
    Not for a wedding. For a birthday. The government is trying to force a custom cake maker to make a customized cake for a gay "wedding". That is way too much power for the government. The owner of the bakery said he was willing to provide them with a cake, but not a custom ordered cake. Not good enough for the government.
    haha oh okay for a birthday, I misunderstood. I mean this seems like much less of a burden than moving to another state. What if you own a home are you just supposed to sell it? What if you can't sell it or cant sell it without losing money? What if you can't find a job that pays as well in the other state? what if you have children, changing schools, moving away from friends, maybe moving away from family. What if the schools are worse? What if you are an out of state college student? I think that making a cake is nothing like this sort of burden.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brother Mark View Post
    The government thinks the baker and pharmicist should go against their religious conscience, which in my opinion, is a violation of their 1st amendment rights.
    Maybe, I don't really care about the cake but the pharmacist is a medical professional. I would be willing to consider making concessions for businesses that don't impact medical care or other crucial services like cakes, but then cakes don't matter to me but they can be important to others. Do you believe that the founders intended the first amendment to extend to cake?

  7. #157
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Chattanooga, TN
    Posts
    14,091

    Re: Trump laments immigration from 's---hole countries' in Oval Office negotiations

    Quote Originally Posted by BraveUlysesses View Post
    no, the job is to provide pharmaceuticals. If you cant do that , you should not be a pharmacist.
    So, if you worked at a gun store, and found out someone was going to buy a gun in order to murder someone, would you sell it to them?

    That is what you are going to make that pharmicist do... he has to sell something that he KNOWS will be used to murder. Why should the pharmicist owner be forced to do that when the pharmacy down the street is willing to sell the murderous drug?

    haha oh okay for a birthday, I misunderstood. I mean this seems like much less of a burden than moving to another state. What if you own a home are you just supposed to sell it? What if you can't sell it or cant sell it without losing money? What if you can't find a job that pays as well in the other state? what if you have children, changing schools, moving away from friends, maybe moving away from family. What if the schools are worse? What if you are an out of state college student? I think that making a cake is nothing like this sort of burden.
    The wages of sin is death. Participating in an abomination is sin to many people. Jesus said it is better to be without an eye, or a hand than it is to sin. You tell me which is better, to sin against God or to be inconvenienced?

    Why should the baker even have to make that choice? Why not leave him free to worship as the 1st amendment guarantees anyway?

    Maybe, I don't really care about the cake but the pharmacist is a medical professional. I would be willing to consider making concessions for businesses that don't impact medical care or other crucial services like cakes, but then cakes don't matter to me but they can be important to others. Do you believe that the founders intended the first amendment to extend to cake?
    You consider killing babies medical care? That's what abortion pills do.

    Keep in mind the purpose of the 1st amendment was not to limit my freedom, but to limit what government could do. So yes, the founders wanted to keep the government out of my decision making as it concerns my business.

    Many businesses say they have the right to refuse services. Where in the constitution does the government have the right to override the 1st amendment and force one to commit murder? We even allow for consciencious objectors (1st amendment) when we are at war! But not for someone that doesn't want to kill a baby? Really?

    Maybe I should be allowed to sue facebook since they don't let anyone advertise on their platform for gun sales. After all, owning a gun is a constitutional right and they are hindering that. How in the world the pharmacy owner doesn't have the same constitutional rights as facebook's owner is beyond me!... especially considering how so many on the left read the 14th amendment.
    Matt 9:13
    13 "But go and learn what this means: ' I DESIRE COMPASSION,AND NOT SACRIFICE,' for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
    NASU

  8. #158

    Re: Trump laments immigration from 's---hole countries' in Oval Office negotiations

    Quote Originally Posted by Brother Mark View Post
    So, if you worked at a gun store, and found out someone was going to buy a gun in order to murder someone, would you sell it to them?

    That is what you are going to make that pharmacist do... he has to sell something that he KNOWS will be used to murder. Why should the pharmacist owner be forced to do that when the pharmacy down the street is willing to sell the murderous drug?
    Gun store owners are not medical professionals, If a Jehovah witness surgeon refused to do surgeries that involved blood transfusions then I don't think they should be a surgeon. I'm fine with them doing a medical job that doesn't interfere with their beliefs but if you cant do the job then you can't do the job. Unfortunately legally abortion is not murder, but legally shooting someone with a gun until dead is, so I think the gun store owner may be obligated by law to either not sell the gun or report it, but I don't actually know that is just my intuition.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brother Mark View Post
    The wages of sin is death. Participating in an abomination is sin to many people. Jesus said it is better to be without an eye, or a hand than it is to sin. You tell me which is better, to sin against God or to be inconvenienced?

    Why should the baker even have to make that choice? Why not leave him free to worship as the 1st amendment guarantees anyway?
    Exactly don't sin against God, get a different job, God never said it was easy following him.


    Quote Originally Posted by Brother Mark View Post
    You consider killing babies medical care? That's what abortion pills do.
    No, but the law does, until it doesn't it is a legal medical treatment.

    Anyway i'm sorry, I asked what sins the law is forcing upon you, and you answered it. So thank you.

  9. #159
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Chattanooga, TN
    Posts
    14,091

    Re: Trump laments immigration from 's---hole countries' in Oval Office negotiations

    Quote Originally Posted by BraveUlysesses View Post
    Gun store owners are not medical professionals, If a Jehovah witness surgeon refused to do surgeries that involved blood transfusions then I don't think they should be a surgeon.
    That's because you don't believe in freedom. That should be left up to the owner and the employee not the government. 1st and 10th amendment and all.

    I'm fine with them doing a medical job that doesn't interfere with their beliefs but if you cant do the job then you can't do the job. Unfortunately legally abortion is not murder, but legally shooting someone with a gun until dead is, so I think the gun store owner may be obligated by law to either not sell the gun or report it, but I don't actually know that is just my intuition.
    I wasn't asking what the law was. I was asking how it should be constitutionally. Thing is, the government doesn't have the right to enforce such things according to the constitution.

    Exactly don't sin against God, get a different job, God never said it was easy following him.
    He did say what the purpose of government was for him though. Do you agree government should be as the Lord says and not what we say? Are you willing to vote that way?

    No, but the law does, until it doesn't it is a legal medical treatment.
    So 14th amendment doesn't apply to medical professions? We can single them out for discrimination? I guess we know your answer to the question you gave me earlier too then "Can the government outlaw a male homosexual from marrying a woman?" According to you, it can because the 14th amendment doesn't protect everyone, just some. Right?

    Anyway i'm sorry, I asked what sins the law is forcing upon you, and you answered it. So thank you.
    Where does the government get the right to tell a free man what he must sell in his pharmacy? What part of the constitution grants that power to the federal government?
    Matt 9:13
    13 "But go and learn what this means: ' I DESIRE COMPASSION,AND NOT SACRIFICE,' for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
    NASU

  10. #160

    Re: Trump laments immigration from 's---hole countries' in Oval Office negotiations

    Quote Originally Posted by Brother Mark View Post
    That's because you don't believe in freedom. That should be left up to the owner and the employee not the government. 1st and 10th amendment and all.
    you are correct I do believe that there should be limits on freedom. I do think that medical professionals have a professional responsibility in their profession. I believe that medical professional that cannot fulfill their duties is a potential danger to their patients/clients.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brother Mark View Post
    I wasn't asking what the law was. I was asking how it should be constitutionally. Thing is, the government doesn't have the right to enforce such things according to the constitution.
    as I said that was just my intuition about the matter, if such a law exists and is challenged i'd be glad to have the court rule on it's constitutionality. Personally I don't have an especially strong stance on its constitutionality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brother Mark View Post
    He did say what the purpose of government was for him though. Do you agree government should be as the Lord says and not what we say? Are you willing to vote that way?
    I believe that you should be free to vote as if the government is supposed to be the sword of the wrath of God. The government doesn't doesn't seem to be operating under that rubric so as a Christian you have to follow the word, and if that means you can't do some jobs then that is the temporary price you pay to keep to the word. This is the christian burden and unfortunately it is our choice to take the difficult path, the government didn't force anyone's hand.


    Quote Originally Posted by Brother Mark View Post
    So 14th amendment doesn't apply to medical professions? We can single them out for discrimination? I guess we know your answer to the question you gave me earlier too then "Can the government outlaw a male homosexual from marrying a woman?" According to you, it can because the 14th amendment doesn't protect everyone, just some. Right?
    It applies to them, its just not an excuse to refuse to do their jobs while maintaining the legal ability to practice medicine. You can't just practice medicine however you want, there are standards based on medical science, not religious doctrine. I do not believe that you should be prevented from practicing medicine because of your beliefs, I believe you should be prevented from practicing medicine if you can't actually practice medicine.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brother Mark View Post
    Where does the government get the right to tell a free man what he must sell in his pharmacy? What part of the constitution grants that power to the federal government?
    Do you believe that the government has the right to control some pharmaceuticals? I think the government has the right to control substances if they can substantiate it, and I think that they can also set the standards that a person must meet In order to handle, prescribe and distribute those substances.....Actually I've argued against this position for a while now,and honestly I don't even know if its true that this is happening because it doesn't seem true that the government is forcing pharmacies to stock particular pharmaceuticals...I need more information about this situation, do you mind?

    Edit: yeah i've changed my mind, if true and the government is just forcing random pharmacies to stock specific stuff then I disagree with that. I think i was conflating this with the whole employee health care covering birth control and or morning after pills. I actually feel pretty silly, I think I just got so caught up in disagreeing with you that I stopped paying attention to what you were actually asking. sorry bro I really should have been paying more attention to what you were saying,and asked for clarification before I responded to that.

  11. #161
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Chattanooga, TN
    Posts
    14,091

    Re: Trump laments immigration from 's---hole countries' in Oval Office negotiations

    Quote Originally Posted by BraveUlysesses View Post
    you are correct I do believe that there should be limits on freedom. I do think that medical professionals have a professional responsibility in their profession. I believe that medical professional that cannot fulfill their duties is a potential danger to their patients/clients.
    That should be up to the person, and their employer. Not the government, especially when it comes to murder.

    Thing is, liberals like to force people to do things against their will. Its one of the things that is so distasteful about modern liberalism compared to classic liberalism.

    as I said that was just my intuition about the matter, if such a law exists and is challenged i'd be glad to have the court rule on it's constitutionality. Personally I don't have an especially strong stance on its constitutionality.
    Sure you would, so long as the court is not legit. Like I said, show me how the constitution backs up your opinion. You are so quick to want to take away my liberty. Do you care what the constitution says or are you more loyal to a government than the constitution upon which that government is supposed to stand?

    I believe that you should be free to vote as if the government is supposed to be the sword of the wrath of God. The government doesn't doesn't seem to be operating under that rubric so as a Christian you have to follow the word, and if that means you can't do some jobs then that is the temporary price you pay to keep to the word. This is the christian burden and unfortunately it is our choice to take the difficult path, the government didn't force anyone's hand.
    That wasn't what I asked. I asked if you would vote for what scripture says is the God given duty of government?

    yes, the government did force their hand and you know it.

    It applies to them, its just not an excuse to refuse to do their jobs while maintaining the legal ability to practice medicine. You can't just practice medicine however you want, there are standards based on medical science, not religious doctrine. I do not believe that you should be prevented from practicing medicine because of your beliefs, I believe you should be prevented from practicing medicine if you can't actually practice medicine.
    You want to look at abortion according to medical science? That will be very easy to prove that the embryo is human and separate from the mother. Still murder.

    Do you believe that the government has the right to control some pharmaceuticals? I think the government has the right to control substances if they can substantiate it, and I think that they can also set the standards that a person must meet In order to handle, prescribe and distribute those substances.....Actually I've argued against this position for a while now,and honestly I don't even know if its true that this is happening because it doesn't seem true that the government is forcing pharmacies to stock particular pharmaceuticals...I need more information about this situation, do you mind?
    I have no problem with government regulating controlled substances. I have a HUGE problem with government telling a business owner he has to sell cocaine, or advertise guns, or sell murder pills. You know, the constitution doesn't guarantee a right so much as it limits governments ability to take it away. That's another change that has happened. The constitution was supposed to partially spell out inalienable rights that government was not to infringe upon. IOW, it LIMITS government rather that grants rights. It simply recognized rights that all thought should already be there.

    The argument our founders had about the bill of rights was that some thought it would actually weaken them by naming them in the constitution (anti-federalist), while the federalist thought that by naming some, it should be done so as to limit government intrusion upon them. Sadly, liberals no longer see it that way.

    Edit: yeah i've changed my mind, if true and the government is just forcing random pharmacies to stock specific stuff then I disagree with that.
    Glad you have come around on that. But our government is doing that very thing.

    I think i was conflating this with the whole employee health care covering birth control and or morning after pills.
    Another overreach of government. Where does the constitution grant the government the right to force private businesses to provide murderous weapons to their employees? Do you think it would be constitutional for the federal government to force private businesses to buy guns for all their employees?

    I actually feel pretty silly, I think I just got so caught up in disagreeing with you that I stopped paying attention to what you were actually asking. sorry bro I really should have been paying more attention to what you were saying,and asked for clarification before I responded to that.
    I challenge you again... are you for a biblical form of government that God chooses? Will you vote that way? I encourage you to study the word and see what God designed government for. If you find it to be more liberal, then vote that way. If not, then vote the way that would encourage a government to be as God designed it to be. You and I both probably agree that if we have government function as God intended, we would all be better off. Right?

    My own personal belief is that we have never had biblical government in the US. But we have been closer to it before, than we are now.
    Matt 9:13
    13 "But go and learn what this means: ' I DESIRE COMPASSION,AND NOT SACRIFICE,' for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
    NASU

  12. #162

    Re: Trump laments immigration from 's---hole countries' in Oval Office negotiations

    Quote Originally Posted by Brother Mark View Post
    That should be up to the person, and their employer. Not the government, especially when it comes to murder.

    Thing is, liberals like to force people to do things against their will. Its one of the things that is so distasteful about modern liberalism compared to classic liberalism.



    Sure you would, so long as the court is not legit. Like I said, show me how the constitution backs up your opinion. You are so quick to want to take away my liberty. Do you care what the constitution says or are you more loyal to a government than the constitution upon which that government is supposed to stand?



    That wasn't what I asked. I asked if you would vote for what scripture says is the God given duty of government?

    yes, the government did force their hand and you know it.



    You want to look at abortion according to medical science? That will be very easy to prove that the embryo is human and separate from the mother. Still murder.



    I have no problem with government regulating controlled substances. I have a HUGE problem with government telling a business owner he has to sell cocaine, or advertise guns, or sell murder pills. You know, the constitution doesn't guarantee a right so much as it limits governments ability to take it away. That's another change that has happened. The constitution was supposed to partially spell out inalienable rights that government was not to infringe upon. IOW, it LIMITS government rather that grants rights. It simply recognized rights that all thought should already be there.

    The argument our founders had about the bill of rights was that some thought it would actually weaken them by naming them in the constitution (anti-federalist), while the federalist thought that by naming some, it should be done so as to limit government intrusion upon them. Sadly, liberals no longer see it that way.



    Glad you have come around on that. But our government is doing that very thing.



    Another overreach of government. Where does the constitution grant the government the right to force private businesses to provide murderous weapons to their employees? Do you think it would be constitutional for the federal government to force private businesses to buy guns for all their employees?



    I challenge you again... are you for a biblical form of government that God chooses? Will you vote that way? I encourage you to study the word and see what God designed government for. If you find it to be more liberal, then vote that way. If not, then vote the way that would encourage a government to be as God designed it to be. You and I both probably agree that if we have government function as God intended, we would all be better off. Right?

    My own personal belief is that we have never had biblical government in the US. But we have been closer to it before, than we are now.
    I was asking what businesses are being forced to stock and sell murder pills?

  13. #163
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Chattanooga, TN
    Posts
    14,091

    Re: Trump laments immigration from 's---hole countries' in Oval Office negotiations

    Quote Originally Posted by BraveUlysesses View Post
    I was asking what businesses are being forced to stock and sell murder pills?
    http://www.lifenews.com/2016/06/28/s...bortion-pills/

    And all those businesses President Obama tried to get to provide abortion pills to their employees as a benefit.
    Matt 9:13
    13 "But go and learn what this means: ' I DESIRE COMPASSION,AND NOT SACRIFICE,' for I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
    NASU

  14. #164
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Resting in Him
    Posts
    5,980

    Re: Trump laments immigration from 's---hole countries' in Oval Office negotiations

    Quote Originally Posted by Brother Mark View Post
    Do you agree government should be as the Lord says and not what we say? Are you willing to vote that way?
    This confuses me ... where in Scripture are we as Christians given instructions on how the government of the nation we live in (civil government) should be and where in Scripture does it say we as Christians are to make our civil governments into a theocracy? Seems I must have missed something because well I thought our "citizenship" is in Heaven. That's not to say that we ought not to participate in the civil government ... but civil government is not our primary concern ... that is at least MY UNDERSTANDING.


    Quote Originally Posted by Brother Mark View Post
    Where does the government get the right to tell a free man what he must sell in his pharmacy? What part of the constitution grants that power to the federal government?
    Again the federal government is involved in much that the constitution doesn't grant them the power to do ... how about social security? And does that pharmacy get reimbursed from the federal government for some of it's sales ... I guess that would be how they TAKE the power ... any ways back to that I do not see our primary concern should be pushing the civil governments for OUR RIGHTS ...

    As Christians seems to me that our civil rights is not of primary concern ... being good examples ourselves yes and judging WITHIN the Church yes ... so I think we would be better witnesses to say I am closing my pharmacy because I do not want to sell abortion pills, I am not selling wedding cakes because I do not want to sell wedding cakes for gay marriages (although like I said before they have no problem providing wedding cakes to those in churches that allow gay marriages as long as the ones marrying for that marriage aren't the gay ones). I think we would get more "traction" by doing things like that than by demanding our civil rights to our religious beliefs ... especially if/when we are fine with other's civil rights for their religious or secular beliefs being trampled on.

    EDIT: The intertwining of Christianity and the Roman Empire had some not so good results on Christianity ... in my opinion ...
    ***
    Lead me in Your truth and teach me,
    For You are the God of my salvation;
    On You I wait all the day.

    Psalms 25:5
    ***

  15. #165

    Re: Trump laments immigration from 's---hole countries' in Oval Office negotiations

    Quote Originally Posted by Brother Mark View Post
    http://www.lifenews.com/2016/06/28/s...bortion-pills/

    And all those businesses President Obama tried to get to provide abortion pills to their employees as a benefit.
    The employee benefit issue is the issue I was mistakenly defending earlier, but this Washington case is different. If I understood what I've read correctly the offending law is actually a state law and the supreme court refused to hear the case. This is not a case of the federal government forcing pharmacists to sell particular drugs, it is a case of the state doing it. Whether it is federal or state I don't think this should be happening , so i agree with you that this is wrong as I understand it. I think that the only situation where the state or federal government should be able to do anything like this is if a pharmacy wants to be a part of a network that has to comply with regulations. For instance if a pharmacy wants to be a certified alternate location for VA pharmacy services, but just as an independent pharmacy this is wrong and I hope they keep trying and get this heard by the supreme court. I believe that the supreme court has the power to rule on its constitutionality, and if found unconstitutional I think the federal government can prevent other states from being able to create similar laws. Do you believe that the supreme court should be able to rule on the constitutionality of this law? Is this a case of state law overreach, if so why, if not why not?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (1 members and 4 guests)

  1. Christ Warrior

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 31
    Last Post: Dec 21st 2016, 12:16 AM
  2. Replies: 138
    Last Post: Dec 17th 2016, 01:36 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •