That’s one way to put it
Active homosexuality being a sin is a moral teaching of the Church.
While folks might have rolled their eyes at the baker issue coming back up, I hope they now see just how important it is as judges are picked. Well, I think that’s pretty much it. and I"m satisfied I’ve said what I need to. And, I’m happy that the issue has now been made plain so that we see clearly what is at stake. Imagine, Catholics Schools forcibly transformed by certain identity groups with the force of government behind them. Catholic schools…Indeed, I’m even more appreciative that Hillary didn’t win. Perhaps she wouldn’t go so far as what’s suggested above, but iI still feel more at ease without her nominating. Kavanagh, I feel, will be a good pick from my perspective.
1 Like
Hey man all they’ve gotta do is actually be private. I promise most of us would immediately drop it all 
Oh, you’re definitely wrong. One of the reasons for adopting the Constitution and getting rid of the AoC was that the AoC didn’t give the Federal Government the power to control private businesses. It was definitely not that States were imposing tariffs on goods from other states, etc. “Regulate” definitely meant “control,” and not “to make regular.”
Or something.
Catholic schools get government funds (indirectly) the same way other non-government schools do. Nobody is coerced to send their children to these schools, the same as any non-government school. The government (not private citizens) would actively have to discriminate based upon religious beliefs. But hey, take the funding and watch many of these kids return to the schools their parents (including non-catholics) wanted to escape. There was a goal in letting public funds be used by non-government schools.
But in any event, let’s do it. Let’s start defund things that go against are conscience. Like anything that promotes abortion. Or that normalizes/celebrates things that our against the religious beliefs of tax payers. Let’s do it!
And, obviously, the baker doesn’t have this problem. Oh wait, I suppose he gets to use tax breaks for his business.
I didn’t, @Sloth.
I thought that it was; and is; a legitimate and important issue worth discussing.
What WILL cause me aggravation is if the Self-Proclaimed Martyr Kim Davis rears her head again. (Which she has promised she will do).
As many of you have indicated; she is not within her rights to not fulfill her public responsibilities as a tax-funded Government Employee.
She DOES have the right to seek another job.
Her case should have been a simple one. It was simply not her property, at all. She should’ve been ignored by folks wanting to preserve religious liberty in their own businesses and institutions as it had no relation to those issues. It was unneeded noise.
And if any of them would like to discriminate, I’d kindly ask them to not ask me to pay for it.
Why would that matter? I know we’re not going to see eye to eye here, but I’ve always been genuinely flabbergasted at the line of “we should be allowed to discriminate based on our religion, and we should be allowed to stick other people who aren’t alright with discrimination with the partial bill.”
They can keep the funding, I’m all for school power. I just don’t like that religious people expect me to financially support their discrimination.
Well the GOP has been actively doing that for years already?
1 Like
Bingo. Don’t want govt rules? Don’t take govt money.
2 Likes
Trying to do that. I’d love to for tax money to stay in the hands of the people paying it in the first place.
We are, hence we get the money. Now, If the government decides that it has no problem taxing religious people and then telling them they must conduct their voluntary based schools against their religious beliefs (which are protected ) in order for them to get some of the money everyone else is competing for…
Funny how the US government is being turned into a treat dispensary for “right thought” instead of an institution that protects association and religious practice/expression.
“government money”
3 Likes
By unlimited, I mean an unlimited right to infringe upon civil rights, either enumerated or not (right to “privacy”, “association” et.al.)
Should local and federal law enforcement be able to respond to complaints originating from religious organizations? Say, ant-religious vandalism? Government money.
Ok, ok, ok. I love you guys but I can’t keep up and do your questions/responses justice anymore. I respect all of you for your polite discourse on a topic that is pretty darn hot. I hope everyone feels I returned the same level of respect. If not, I apologize.
You’re perfectly allowed to practice your religion. I just don’t understand why you expect private citizens who don’t agree with your discrimination to ALSO pay for it to happen.
I’ll say this much before going. There’s is A LOT being taught in universities receiving federal monies that I vehemently oppose. My mandatory freshman colloquium course was an outright left wing course full of redistributionism and other indisputably left wing causes.
So, how about this, no funding anything someone might strongly oppose.
Maybe we shouldn’t be taxing people whose voluntary associations aren’t allowed to be represented among those receiving federal dollars. Dollars that they’ve contributed to.
Were they also topics that are explicitly prohibited from intermingling with the govt the way religion is?
If you can get enough of the population on your side, absolutely.
You mean under a govt where separation of church and state (lol) are explicitly set forth in the Constitution?
No room at all? Really? None? We wlll survive without it, ultimately. If I were a wagering man I’d put money on our institutions outlasting the US when all is said and done, federal money or not. But, my gosh.