Religious liberty law promotes fragmented society

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Funny that you the theist made the bigoted, hateful comment - but me the atheist said something tolerant and inclusive. You dig your own hole.

First provide the evidence of the MRI pictures of the hate in my brain atheist.

 

[Bunyip]

First provide the evidence of the MRI pictures of the hate in my brain atheist.

I can only judge you by your words. By they are sufficient.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I can only judge you by your words. By they are sufficient.

Except the atheistic meaning of judging is to measure, and convey a fact, which is not what judging is according to Islam and common humanity.

 

[Bunyip]

Except the atheistic meaning of judging is to measure, and convey a fact, which is not what judging is according to Islam and common humanity.

I stand by my original comment, that diversity does not preclude unity. You mate can make as big a fool of yourself as you like.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

I stand by my original comment, that diversity does not preclude unity. You mate can make as big a fool of yourself as you like.

First provide the MRI scan to prove the foolery exists.

 

[Bunyip]

First provide the MRI scan to prove the foolery exists.

Why would I need to? You do such a fantastic job of proving it for me.
Have a nice evening.

 

[psychoslice]

It's a highly intelligent form of willful ignorance. The contortions atheists go through to deny free will is real and with that deny the human spirit as well are supersophisticated. You can see on the wiki on free will.

Well lets face it, what on earth is free will, its your opinion, or mine nothing else.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Why would I need to? You do such a fantastic job of proving it for me.
Have a nice evening.

Because atheists reject witness evidence as unreliable.

 

[psychoslice]

Because atheists reject witness evidence as unreliable.

Yes but what evidence, yours ?.

 

[Bunyip]

Because atheists reject witness evidence as unreliable.

And why would anyone reject your witness? You seem so balanced and fair.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Well lets face it, what on earth is free will, its your opinion, or mine nothing else.

You mean, let's sabotage our conscience a bit, and not let the reality that we choose things hit us too hardly, let's have some deniability.

Oh really judge, I could choose in life? I didn't know that, honestly.

Getting back to the subject, no way no how do I want to be united with any atheist in any way. Fragmentation, or so to say, having your own thing with your own people is key to happiness in a society with a lot of atheists.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

And why would anyone reject your witness? You seem so balanced and fair.

Unfortunately you require an MRI picture of the fairness first.

 

[Bunyip]

Unfortunately you require an MRI picture of the fairness first.

So you keep saying.

Whilst proving otherwise.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

So you keep saying.

Whilst proving otherwise.

Shut up and eat your MRI diner, your mother would tell you.

 

[BSM1]

What next? Muslims? Jews? Liberals? Conservatives? Laws like this promote segregation! A segregated divided society is a weak society! America needs to be united! I dislike both liberals and conservatives for dividing America!

You do realize, of course, that this is a federal law signed by Bill Clinton in 1993 protecting the religious rights of Indians in regards to peyote? This new law simply gives the same rights to other religions. Think about this: suppose a Muslim restaurant had a customer that demanded a BLT, should said Muslim be forced to handle the bacon? This law would protect his religious right not to handle pork.

 

[Stevicus]

You do realize, of course, that this is a federal law signed by Bill Clinton in 1993 protecting the religious rights of Indians in regards to peyote? This new law simply gives the same rights to other religions. Think about this: suppose a Muslim restaurant had a customer that demanded a BLT, should said Muslim be forced to handle the bacon? This law would protect his religious right not to handle pork.

I think this is an apples to oranges comparison. There's no law nor anything in the Constitution that would require a restaurant to serve something that isn't on the menu. You can't go into McDonald's and demand a soufflé. On the other hand, if a Christian went into a Muslim-owned restaurant and the owner said "I don't serve Christians here; get out," that would be another matter.

 

[BSM1]

I think this is an apples to oranges comparison. There's no law nor anything in the Constitution that would require a restaurant to serve something that isn't on the menu. You can't go into McDonald's and demand a soufflé. On the other hand, if a Christian went into a Muslim-owned restaurant and the owner said "I don't serve Christians here; get out," that would be another matter.

Point taken. But still this law is nothing new. It's been done before.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I dislike both liberals and conservatives for dividing America!

Thanks for sharing.

 

[gsa]

You do realize, of course, that this is a federal law signed by Bill Clinton in 1993 protecting the religious rights of Indians in regards to peyote? This new law simply gives the same rights to other religions. Think about this: suppose a Muslim restaurant had a customer that demanded a BLT, should said Muslim be forced to handle the bacon? This law would protect his religious right not to handle pork.

Sorry, but this is simply not true. The previous RFRA laws applied to government action. The Indians were allowed to circumvent a government regulation that prohibited their possession of peyote if, and only if, the government could not establish that the regulation was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest. By contrast, this new law creates a religious "defense" in disputes between private parties, including individuals and business establishments. And by so doing, it creates a license to discriminate not only on the basis of sexual orientation, but also religion, race, gender, and other protected categories (at least under state law; the exemption would not be applicable to federal anti-discrimination statutes). This is why Pence was avoiding answering the question when it was posed: Does this law allow businesses to refuse to serve gay people? And the answer is yes, it does.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Shut up and eat your MRI diner, your mother would tell you.

We have the MRI. apparently its of a troll.