Effort seeks to prohibit anti-gay discrimination

Nov 13, 2012 Full story: News Tribune 99

A Missouri group may soon start circulating petitions for a ballot measure aimed at making it illegal to discriminate against gays and lesbians in the state.

Full Story
First Prev
of 5
Next Last
guest

United States

#89 Nov 27, 2012
Jerald wrote:
ALL RIGHTS HAVE LIMITS, even religious rights.
The Constitution doesn't limit the rights of individuals, it's limits the power of government. Read the 1st Amendment.
Can an individual claim, in the manner of Abraham, to legally sacrifice his child to God on religious grounds?
We're not talking about taking away another person's rights in the name of religion. We're talking about government unlawfully forcing one person (employer) to pay for contraceptives for another (employee) over the employer's religious objections.
Your claim is a loser.
Hardly. You're the one who has to make absurd claims and false analogies in a feeble attempt to bolster your position. All I have to do is to keep shoving the 1st Amendment down your throat every time you open your pie hole.
guest

United States

#90 Nov 27, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
If it serves a clear and compelling interest of the state to do so, that right can be restricted or even completely denied by legislative/executive/judicial act.
Believe what you want puss cake. The fact is that the 1st Amendment specifically prohibits Congress from doing preceisely what you described.
guest

United States

#91 Nov 27, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
You speak of this right as if it were absolute and applicable to just about anything you want it to apply to...
It is an absolute right, and we're talking specifically about government enacting legislation to force one person to pay for another's contraceptives. Stay on point.
Laws and ordinances which prohibit discrimination on a suspect basis (race, ethnicity, religion, sex, gender, disability, etc) have long been held a reasonable restriction on individual rights of an employer in the public square...
Privately owned businesses are not public entities.
The question of what if any religious exemption is constitutionally required to exist under the free exercise clause either for the individual or collective, in laws mandating insurance coverage has yet to be decided.
The right to the free exercise of religion does not hinge on a legislative exemption. It's a natural right given to us by God, and governemnt is specifically prohibited from passing any legislation that intereferes with that right. Again, read the 1st Amendment - Congress shall make no law....
guest

United States

#92 Nov 27, 2012
snyper wrote:
Abortifacients are NOT contraceptives.
That's simply not true. Many contraceptives are abortifacients.
MY point is that a lot of the conflict on this is through the concerted efforts of the RCC to confuse contraception with abortion in peoples' minds...
In many cases they are indeed the same. Look, you're obviously ignorant of the facts surrounding abortifacients. Study up and stop making a fool of yourself.
It is the same meme function used to try to fuse into people minds gay people gay=pedophile and gay=AIDS, etc.
It's a fact that homosexual and pedophile behaviors are both aberrant and deviant.

It's a fact that homosexual males are many more times likely to contract aids that heterosexual males.

No confusion, just facts.
The mentally lazy vote, too.
Yep, and then the whole country suffers from an 8 year long Obama presidency.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#93 Nov 27, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
That's simply not true. Many contraceptives are abortifacients.
<quoted text>
In many cases they are indeed the same. Look, you're obviously ignorant of the facts surrounding abortifacients. Study up and stop making a fool of yourself.
<quoted text>
It's a fact that homosexual and pedophile behaviors are both aberrant and deviant.
It's a fact that homosexual males are many more times likely to contract aids that heterosexual males.
No confusion, just facts.
<quoted text>
Yep, and then the whole country suffers from an 8 year long Obama presidency.
Abortion happens AFTER conception. Contraception before. That's what the word means; "against conception". Not "against implantation" or "against gestation"
guest

United States

#94 Nov 27, 2012
snyper wrote:
Abortion happens AFTER conception. Contraception before. That's what the word means; "against conception". Not "against implantation" or "against gestation"
Study up on how different contraceptives work. Many do work after conception.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#95 Nov 27, 2012
guest wrote:
Believe what you want puss cake. The fact is that the 1st Amendment specifically prohibits Congress from doing preceisely what you described.
Okay, I will believe in the reality of some 200+ years of federal legislative, executive and judicial actions establishing constitutionally acceptable limitations on both the individual and collective rights to establishment and free exercise of religious beliefs and you believe in the fantasy that the Constitution gives you the absolute right to do whatever mischief in the name of God you want. Since you didn't bother to notice, I have outlined any number of areas where your supposedly absolute right has been constitutionally checked and there are more if you'd like to see just how far your ability to disbelieve reality can stretch.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#96 Nov 27, 2012
guest wrote:
It is an absolute right, and we're talking specifically about government enacting legislation to force one person to pay for another's contraceptives. Stay on point.
On point, the federal government has a compelling interest in establishing the minimum requirements for the insurance that employers can offer their employees, including offering contraceptives and other services that may be against the religious beliefs of either the employer or employee. There is no absolute right to inflict religious beliefs on those who do not share in them for employers. I've already gone over a number of ways you are sadly mistaken about this, you can ignore them if you want, but it does not change the reality.
guest wrote:
Privately owned businesses are not public entities.
You obviously have never owned a business, either that or you are just visiting our planet.
guest wrote:
The right to the free exercise of religion does not hinge on a legislative exemption. It's a natural right given to us by God, and governemnt is specifically prohibited from passing any legislation that intereferes with that right. Again, read the 1st Amendment - Congress shall make no law....
Sweetie, I have read the 1st Amendment, but I've also read an awful lot of the 200+ years of history since which prove just how less than absolute your 1st amendment rights are than you believe them to have been written.

"The absolute rights of man, considered as a free agent, endowed with discernment to know good from evil, and with power of choosing those measures which appear to him to be most desirable, are usually summed up in one general appellation, and denominated the natural liberty of mankind. This natural liberty consists properly in a power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless by the law of nature; being a right inherent in us by birth, and one of the gifts of God to man at his creation, when he endued him with the faculty of free will. But every man, when he enters into society, gives up a part of his natural liberty, as the price of so valuable a purchase; and, in consideration of receiving the advantages of mutual commerce, obligos himself to conform to those laws, which the community has thought proper to establish. And this species of legal obedience and conformity is infinitely more desirable than that wild and savage liberty which is sacrificed to obtain it. For no man that considers a moment would wish to retain the absolute and uncontrolled power of doing whatever he pleases: the consequence of which is, that every other man would also have the same power, and then there would be no security to individuals in any of the enjoyments of life. Political, therefore, or civil liberty, which is that of a member of society, is no other than natural liberty so far restrained by human laws (and no farther) as is necessary and expedient for the general advantage of the public. Hence we may collect that the law, which restrains a man from doing mischief to his fellow-citizens, though it diminishes the natural, increases the civil liberty of mankind; but that every wanton and causeless restraint of the will of the subject, whether practised by a monarch, a nobility, or a popular assembly, is a degree of tyranny: nay, that even laws themselves, whether made with or without our consent, if they regulate and constrain our conduct in matters of more indifference, without any good end in view, are regulations destructive of liberty: whereas, if any public advantage can arise from observing such precepts, the control of our private inclinations, in one or two particular points, will conduce to preserve our general freedom in others of more importance; by supporting that state of society, which alone can secure our independence."

Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England in Four Books. 1753
guest

United States

#97 Nov 27, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
On point, the federal government has a compelling interest in establishing the minimum requirements for the insurance that employers can offer their employees
But the federal government is specifically prohibited from interfering with the free exercise of religion. What that means is that government has no lawful power to make any impositions on individuals that would violate their religious liberties.

As far as your “compelling interest” theory, that’s laughable. Government has no such interest regarding private contractual arrangements private citizens willingly engage in respecting compensation for services rendered. We have a free market system, not a government monopoly. Please don’t make me educate you on basic economics too.

Again, here’s what the 1st Amendment explicitly states:

“Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Plain, simple, unambiguous. Government is specifically precluded from doing what you claim they must. Now, who is denying reality?
You obviously have never owned a business, either that or you are just visiting our planet.
I’ve owned several, right here in the good ol’ US of A. As I said, a privately owned business is not a public entity, and therefore doesn’t fall under statutes and regulations that pertain to public entities.
Sweetie, I have read the 1st Amendment, but I've also read an awful lot of the 200+ years of history
Well puss cake, apparently your reading comprehension skills are grossly inadequate, as is your understanding of the Constitution in relation to all other law. The 1st Amendment is in full force and effect today, the same as it was 200 years ago. Unless and until the 1st Amendment is repealed, the federal government has no lawful power to enact legislation or regulations that prohibit the free exercise of religion.

BTW, I like Blackstone and have his commentaries on my bookshelf. Which volume and page number did you quote from, and in what context was it given in?

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#98 Nov 27, 2012
guest wrote:
But the federal government is specifically prohibited from interfering with the free exercise of religion.
You keep saying that as if it were absolute. It isn't, I have proved in a number of instances where that right has been limited in constitutionally acceptable manners.
guest wrote:
What that means is that government has no lawful power to make any impositions on individuals that would violate their religious liberties.
Um dear, you really should learn to take notes, there is more than 200 years of common law which proves your fantasy has no basis in reality, I've told you that this reality exists several times now.
guest wrote:
As far as your “compelling interest” theory, that’s laughable. Government has no such interest regarding private contractual arrangements private citizens willingly engage in respecting compensation for services rendered. We have a free market system, not a government monopoly. Please don’t make me educate you on basic economics too.
Lamb chop, it's not my compelling interest theory, it is the standard that the Courts have set to judge whether governmental limitations on our fundamental rights are constitutionally acceptable. In order to limit the collective right of faiths to the free exercise of their religious beliefs, a compelling governmental interest must be served in the narrowest possible way in doing so. The burden of proof is on the limitation to prove that it is constitutional. When it comes to the individual's right to the free exercise of their religion, such restrictions only need to serve a governmental purpose (intermediate scrutiny). Employers affiliated with the doctrine of a faith, are entitled to strict scrutiny of their free exercise rights, individual employers who just happen to believe in that doctrine, intermediate scrutiny. None of the cases which are insisting that the free exercise clause actually stretches this far have gone to ruling and as far as I know, none have even made it to trial. You're speaking as if the Constitution has already decided this for us.
guest wrote:
Again, here’s what the 1st Amendment explicitly states:
“Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Plain, simple, unambiguous. Government is specifically precluded from doing what you claim they must. Now, who is denying reality?
Hon, when have I denied what the 1st Amendment says? It says exactly as you quoted it. What I have been pointing out is that in spite of how you insist that it is to be interpreted an unambiguous, absolute right that groups of faithful and individual faithful enjoy to do and believe and do pretty much whatever in the f*ck you want as long as you bring a God with you to blame for it, it hasn't been. The Constitution has empowered the government to limit our individual and/or collective rights to religion if there is a need for them to do so. Sorry.
guest wrote:
I’ve owned several, right here in the good ol’ US of A. As I said, a privately owned business is not a public entity, and therefore doesn’t fall under statutes and regulations that pertain to public entities.
Now I know you are not telling the truth, either that, or your businesses weren't exactly what one would call legal. A privately owned business providing goods or services to the public and subject to the statutes and regulations regarding public accommodations, whether the religious sensibilities of the owner are offended by them or not.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#99 Nov 27, 2012
guest wrote:
Well puss cake, apparently your reading comprehension skills are grossly inadequate, as is your understanding of the Constitution in relation to all other law. The 1st Amendment is in full force and effect today, the same as it was 200 years ago. Unless and until the 1st Amendment is repealed, the federal government has no lawful power to enact legislation or regulations that prohibit the free exercise of religion.
What part of relative right aren't you getting?
guest wrote:
BTW, I like Blackstone and have his commentaries on my bookshelf. Which volume and page number did you quote from, and in what context was it given in?
Of the Absolute Right of Individuals, Book 1, pp 26

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#100 Nov 27, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
Study up on how different contraceptives work. Many do work after conception.
Then they are miscalled "contraceptives". They are abortifacients.

It's not accurate or useful to call an unfertilized egg a chicken.
guest

United States

#101 Nov 28, 2012
Rick in Kansas wrote:
You keep saying that as if it were absolute.
Because it is. You just don’t want to accept the clear, unambiguous language of the 1st Amendment. What’s so hard to understand about “Congress shall make no law…”?
Um dear, you really should learn to take notes, there is more than 200 years of common law which proves your fantasy has no basis in reality
The right to the free exercise of religion is a common law right. And as I’ve already told you, history has not changed a single word in the 1st Amendment. Unless and until it is repealed, Congress will continue to be barred from making laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion.
Lamb chop, it's not my compelling interest theory, it is the standard that the Courts have set
No court has ever held that government has a compelling interest in forcing an employer, over his religious objections, to provide health insurance coverage for his employees.

Besides, the courts have no power to alter or abolish the Constitution.
Hon, when have I denied what the 1st Amendment says? It says exactly as you quoted it.
Of course it says exactly what I have quoted, yet you’ve denied it in every one of your posts on this thread.
A privately owned business providing goods or services to the public and subject to the statutes and regulations regarding public accommodations, whether the religious sensibilities of the owner are offended by them or not.
Only to the extent that those statutes and regulations comply with the 1st Amendment. Acts of Congress are inferior law. They are subject to the mandates of the Constitution, and in this particular instance, to the 1st Amendment.

At this point, we’re merely talking in circles. I’m choosing not to continue. As they say, you can lead a jackass to water, but you can’t make him drink. I’ve led you to pure springs of the U.S. Constitution. If you choose to continue eating the lying bullshit from the far left, be my guest.
guest

United States

#102 Nov 28, 2012
snyper wrote:
Then they are miscalled "contraceptives". They are abortifacients.
I agree. Yet, that is par for the course from the pro abortion crowd. They misname everything in order to fool people into thinking they aren't really murdering a helpless, innocent human being.
It's not accurate or useful to call an unfertilized egg a chicken.
True, but it's inaccurate to call a living human being a mass of tissue or a glob of cells too.

Here, take a look at this "mass of tissue" then come back and tell me that wasn't a living human being that was slaughtered in the most gruesome manner imaginable:

http://www.100abortionpictures.com/Aborted_Ba...
Beauty Queen

Taunton, UK

#103 Nov 28, 2012
guest wrote:
no issue.
internet troll ....

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#104 Nov 28, 2012
guest wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. Yet, that is par for the course from the pro abortion crowd. They misname everything in order to fool people into thinking they aren't really murdering a helpless, innocent human being.
<quoted text>
True, but it's inaccurate to call a living human being a mass of tissue or a glob of cells too.
Here, take a look at this "mass of tissue" then come back and tell me that wasn't a living human being that was slaughtered in the most gruesome manner imaginable:
http://www.100abortionpictures.com/Aborted_Ba...
Actually, it's the reverse. It's the RCC that intentionally conflated the two very different activites. They did so because for them even masturbation is a "sin", not to mention unmarried relations. lol

The RCC has been very vocal in it's opposition to condom programs everywhere, and most notably even in Africa where such programs are essential to stem the HIV pandemic.

The RCC has been absolutely and intransigently unreasonable on any sexual issue.

It can also be demonstrated the active collusion between the RCC and fundie Protestant sects to propagate and maintain the confusion of the separate issues.

The RCC does not seem to recognize (or understand?) and care about the lifesaving benefits of a "reduced harm" perspective.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#105 Nov 28, 2012
guest wrote:
Because it is. You just don’t want to accept the clear, unambiguous language of the 1st Amendment. What’s so hard to understand about “Congress shall make no law…”?
Dear, there is a very simple reason that I do not accept your absolutist interpretation of the 1st Amendment, the 200+ years of exceptions that have been carved into both the individual and collective free exercise right. Now if all those perfectly constitutionally acceptable exceptions hadn't been affirmed by the Courts, you might have something, but they were and you don't.
guest wrote:
The right to the free exercise of religion is a common law right.
Yes dear it is, all our rights exist under the common law, as do any and all limitations to any of those rights.
guest wrote:
And as I’ve already told you, history has not changed a single word in the 1st Amendment.
History hasn't changed dear and neither have the limitations which have been placed upon the interpretation of what exactly those words mean. You do not have the right to exercise your religious beliefs by denying urgent medical care to minors in hopes that faith alone will heal them, you do not have the right to exercise your religious beliefs by discriminating against people who do not share your religious beliefs in providing goods and services to the public and so on for each and every limitation which has been placed on both our individual and collective right to exercise our religious/nonreligious beliefs.
guest wrote:
Unless and until it is repealed, Congress will continue to be barred from making laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion.
Unless and until every decision by the Courts which have upheld limitations on the free exercise of religion by federal, state and local governments are overturned, your absolutist fantasy remains just that.
guest wrote:
No court has ever held that government has a compelling interest in forcing an employer, over his religious objections, to provide health insurance coverage for his employees.
And conversely, no Court has found that they DON'T have such an interest. None of these cases have gone to trial yet. I'm just going by what the common law has to say in similar cases and it doesn't look good for those who believe that the federal government isn't well within its constitutional authority to to just that.
guest wrote:
Besides, the courts have no power to alter or abolish the Constitution.
They do have the authority to interpret it however, they always have.
guest wrote:
Of course it says exactly what I have quoted, yet you’ve denied it in every one of your posts on this thread.
It SAYS exactly as you say it does dear, that shouldn't be confused with that it MEANS exactly as you say it does. Jeez.
guest wrote:
Only to the extent that those statutes and regulations comply with the 1st Amendment.
Equal opportunity/non-discrimination ordinances offer built in protections for the collective right to free exercise in a number of instances, but none whatsoever fot the individual right. If you want to exercise your religious beliefs by employing only those who share those beliefs, too bad. The government's interest in fair employment for ALL prevails over your 1st Amendment right. Need any more examples?
guest wrote:
Acts of Congress are inferior law.
Well yeah, but not when they are upheld under that Constitution by the Courts, then they are one and the same under the common law.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#106 Nov 28, 2012
guest wrote:
They are subject to the mandates of the Constitution, and in this particular instance, to the 1st Amendment.
Yet there remains the list of limitations which have been constitutionally placed on individual business owners 1st Amendment rights that you refuse to acknowledge.
guest wrote:
At this point, we’re merely talking in circles.
That's nobody's fault but your own dear. You keep repeating the same thing over and over again as if that is a response.
guest wrote:
I’m choosing not to continue.
That's too bad, I've been having fun helping you prove yourself wrong and closed-minded.
guest wrote:
As they say, you can lead a jackass to water, but you can’t make him drink.
And you can lead a wh*re to Vassar but you can't make her think. I've laid out the facts, offered numerous examples of how what you claim to be an absolute right to do whatever in the freak you want to in the name of God has been limited not only by Congress/the Executive/the Courts, but by state and local governments to boot, directed you to more than 200+ years of history that proves exactly what I've been saying and nothing. Not even a flicker of recognition. I don't blame you for wanting to leave, you're in over your head.
guest wrote:
I’ve led you to pure springs of the U.S. Constitution.
Yes dear, you have, my only issue is with that funky ass Kool-Aid you're trying to mix in with it. It's caused you to totally disregard reality and that ain't a trip I think I need to be taking with you. While it might be fun to do whatever in the freak I want if I can blame some God for it in the end, but that is a really sh*tty attitude for somebody to have when you are on the receiving end of it.
guest wrote:
If you choose to continue eating the lying bullshit from the far left, be my guest.
What lying bullshit have I posted dear? What limitation on our 1st Amendment right to exercise our religious beliefs that I have said exists, doesn't? What of the many limitations that have been placed on that right that I haven't bothered to list don't exist? You have accused me of lying, let's see you prove it, or is that just one more sin on your repentance list for later.

One last parting though that you obviously didn't occur to you. It really doesn't matter if ALL individual or group plans offered by an insurer cover the offending services, if ANY of them do, those in the pools which don't are still helping to pay for those in the ones which do. It is, after all, ALL going through the same company. Demanding a specially protected right to discriminate against employees based on your personal choice of religious beliefs, by denying them the federally mandated minimum coverage, when you and they are paying for these services for everybody else anyways, sounds ever so Christlike.
guest

United States

#107 Nov 28, 2012
snyper wrote:
Actually, it's the reverse. It's the RCC that intentionally conflated the two very different activites.
That's simply not true. Many abortifacients are called contraceptives by almost everyone. It's the common vernacular of the day and has nothing to do with the RCC.

You obviously have a deep seated resentment toward the RCC, and/or toward God, but that isn't at all germane to the discussion at hand.

BTW, did you look at the pic? If so, do you really think what was merely a "mass of tissue" and not a living human being that was slaughtered by abortion?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Missouri Government Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Missouri's Prop C: Voters Set to Challenge Heal... (Aug '10) Oct 15 Stop Pig Brutality 18,911
Men that are Not The Biological Father Still FO... (May '09) Oct 10 Bulldog 52
Missouri: corporate agriculture wins 'Right to ... Aug '14 not a liberal idiot 3
Missouri behind pace in paying tax refunds Jun '14 Wilsonsmokngblunt... 2
New daycare requirements approved in Missouri May '14 Wilsonsmokngblunt... 2
Missouri Lawmakers Pass 3-Day Abortion Wait Period May '14 godless by choice 16
Missouri condemned man fears 'painful' execution May '14 see the light 1

Missouri Government People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE