Sorry but when I see this kinda stuff... freedom of religion as well as from... has been a cornerstone of this nation for over 200 years... and this person says this... well no way can I vote for him now... I look upon his reasoning and I find... faulty... with this kind of reasoning... seems to me... people will not be allowed to conform to their religious beliefs... granted with the wedding cake thing seems such may already be gone... thing about that was I pretty sure there were cake makers that would have gladly made a cake no problem... to me seems and seemed like a cooked up attack designed to destroy one of our freedoms... Former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party presidential candidate, said religious liberty is a "black hole" that leads to discrimination. (Reuters photo) There's a big difference between "libertarians" like former U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) and his son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), and "Libertarians" like former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson. And it's not just the upper or lower case "L." In an interview with The Washington Examiner, Johnson—the Libertarian Party presidential nominee—said he felt religious liberty laws, in general, were a bad idea because they promote discrimination. Here's the full comment: "Here's the issue. You've narrowly defined this," he said. "But if we allow for discrimination—if we pass a law that allows for discrimination on the basis of religion—literally, we're gonna open up a can of worms when it come stop discrimination of all forms, starting with Muslims ... who knows. "You're narrowly looking at a situation where if you broaden that, I just tell you—on the basis of religious freedom, being able to discriminate—something that is currently not allowed—discrimination will exist in places we never dreamed of." Johnson, who has tried to promote himself as an alternative to disaffected Republican and Democratic voters who are unhappy with their respective parties' nominees, still wants your vote. So much so, he also declared in the same interview that Roe v. Wade is the "law of the land" and that he has no intention of trying to overturn it. charismanews.com/politics/issu…ious-liberty-a-black-hole
Just another irony of this campaign. Johnson and Weld are not and never have been Libertarians...they are disaffected Republicans running under the LP because they could not overcome the GOP establishment's grip on the primary process. This helps to put what Trump has accomplished by gaining the GOP nomination into true perspective.
I have always identified more with the libertarians than conservatives. I supported Ron Paul in 2008 and think it was to the detriment of the entire country that more people couldn't see through the smoke and mirrors to support him. But this guy is no one I would support in any way. Anyone thinking of voting for him might as well go and vote for Hillary. He is as much a libertarian as John Mcstain is a Republican.
Not sure what the problem is. He is advocating that we don't need more laws. in my mind this would include sharia law. or did I misread that?
In my mind he is not advocating no more laws... he is saying get rid of one of our rights... and he say it... at least that is what I see... and yes he does bring up moose lambs... but therein lays a big problem that we really have to face now or later... are we gonna have a Bill of Rights or live under Sharia? Cause the 2 can NOT coexist... Sharia says you are a 4th class person BTW... and you can be enslaved, bought and sold, and used, forcibly if you resist, against your will, to make more moose lambs... and you can be hung up upside down and beaten for infractions of the rules... would link some of those video in... but this site would probably shut em down and might even ban me for doing it... they're that ugly! where as the Bill of Rights says NOPE you are free and equal... and if anyone tries to do those things... trouble for em... so thinkin we better start choosin our future now? and getting rid of ANY of our rights for any reason... like to appease others... is FOOLISH, STUPID. and probably FATAL...
I think that what Johnson is alluding to, is that appeals to "religious liberty" as a justification for discriminatory, dickish behaviour, may create a "black hole" of unintended negative consequences for the religious discriminator as much as for those discriminated against on the basis of religion. Usually the religious liberty that is being advocated for, is religious liberty for the religion that they are affiliated with, over other religious faiths and creeds that they don't give a toss about. This is not religious liberty, but religious privilege seeking, and religious preferrentialism. Many Christians see no problem in enlisting Federal, State and Local Government bodies to support their own evangelical programs, but the same Christians will often get their noses out of joint when they themselves feel that they are suffering by being discriminated against by those faiths other than their own, exercising their religious liberty. What is sauce for the Christian goose, is not intended to be also sauce for the infidel gander. Religious liberty, in the form of legislation extorted from Congressional and Senatorial office holders, have generally preferrenced the religious liberty of some, over the religious liberty of others. I think that this is what Johnson is describing as a "religious liberty black hole". The dudes who would have American government schools permit the religious liberty of Christian evangelists to establish Good News Clubs Good News Club - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, are somewhat less sanguine about schools also extending the same kind of religious liberty for the establishment of After School Satan Clubs. WARNING TO PARENTS: An 'After School Satan' Club May Be Coming To Your Kid's School • Now The End Begins * Advisory: If one is serious about making a case for religious liberty, it is for the religious liberty of all....not just the religious liberty of the cake baker who is in the business of offering public accommodations, over the religious liberty of the cake buyer who is seeking the public accommodation being offered. * http://www.afterschoolsatan.com/educatin-with-satan/faq/
We have the first amendment, we preach separation of church and state but I think @chelloveck is correct-
I agree entirely....I believe that Rabbinical law (Halakha) and Christian Canon Law should also be afforded the same standing as Sharia law in relation to the Bill of Rights. None of those systems of religious law should enjoy any precedence over the Bill of Rights. Now, do you wish your faith confession's internal legal system to join Sharia into the black hole of your religious liberty??
Pretty slick... and totally ignores the principals this nation was founded on... maybe we all need to do a look up of what the founders actually said about how and why we have what we have... ? they were not shy and told us their reasons in letters and written down speeches... So how about we all do a little lookin around and then report back in this thread...? there is a major problem with affording the same standing... if you can't figure it out... well that suggest some possibilities... 1 you have NOT read and do NOT understand Sharia law... 2 you have read a little but still do not fully comprehend Sharia law... 3 you have read and do understand Sharia law and still say the above... (troubling to say the least!) the major problem is they can NOT coexist... they are counter to each other... don't believe me? read em and their basic beliefs and tell me which one conforms closest to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights... this nation has tangled with this form of religion in the past... look a Jefferson... he wrote about it... you can read it... we also have a problem... what do we really want for ourselves and our children... what path will we choose...
Religious freedom in the USA according to the "Law of the Land" does not permit your religion and devout members to violate US Law if the 2 are in conflict. Examples; Mormons and Polygamy, Islam; and slavery, honor killings, pedophilia, genitalia mutilation, rape of non mooselimbs, killing of non mooselimbs, and buggering your neighbors goat. Just kidding on the last one. I threw it in the mix to lighten the mood a bit. I think I made my point.
American Indians and Peyote..... However things can change... Like SameSex Marriage... So i wouldn't bet that the Polygamy Ban, would stand for much longer, if it was Pushed....
Mormons and Polygamy- but if you do not marry, places like Portland embrace the concept. Polyamorous in Portland: the city making open relationships easy pedophilia- then why is NAMBLA a club and the ACLU defends them??? rape of non mooselimbs- they rape Muslim women also. I think all women are fair game with those guys. Muslim Woman Gang-Raped and Beheaded I will leave the goat statistics alone. But I think what we have in this country is a growing trend to bend the laws or overlook them when it involves a minority or alternative life style.
I wonder what ever happened to "We reserve the right to refuse service". Since when is it against the constitution to refuse a service that goes against your beliefs? Where does it say that a Christian baker has to bake a cake for a gay couple or face federal prosecution? That's BS. Go somewhere else. I don't have a problem with gay marriage, just don't come in my church and tell me that I have to perform the ceremony. No I don't. Find a so-called "church" that will do it for you. The crux of this religious freedom debate is forcing people, mainly Christians, to do things they cannot support. Is this the land of the free, or the land of the cowed? And don't give me the civil rights garbage. Refusing to serve blacks is a whole other issue and has nothing to do with my right to refuse to do something, bake a cake, perform a service, that is morally objectionable to me. Where are MY rights? That is why religous freedom laws are sorely needed and I support whole heartedly.
What gets me is the gay couples who try an force an obviously christian pesons to participate in their marriage ceremony for example by makingin ng the wedding cake. To me this would seem to be a perfect way to end up with a cake that had spit or worse in it... If this is the happiest day of your life why try and fill it with people who are against it and are obviously going to be not willing to do their best for you with the quality of their work.
I have come to hold the opinion that there must be other bakers in the area and I'm pretty sure one of them would have done the cake for them... So to me this was staged... and it was the intent all along to do this... possibly even a collaborative effort...
