• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Supreme Court Suprise

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
How do you reconcile an ideology that acknowledges a higher authority than the governments and laws created by men, in a country that enshrines religious freedom as a core and fundamental right, who believe that life begins at conception?

Liberals have their own purity tests on this issue. It’s a lightning rod litmus test.

The bible instructs believers to live by the rules in place on earth, because God himself has ordained and allowed it. So if the majority want something and it happens, God ordained it.

You'll be searching for a while if you want to find a version of Christianity that lives by the bible to a degree that will be meaningful to objective review. Almost all versions pick and choose what they want to live by.

History has shown time and time again that reconciliation with religious people's is a pipe dream. I mean, historically speaking christians just got to the point of not fighting each other recently.
 
How do you reconcile an ideology that acknowledges a higher authority than the governments and laws created by men, in a country that enshrines religious freedom as a core and fundamental right, who believe that life begins at conception?

Liberals have their own purity tests on this issue. It’s a lightning rod litmus test.

Yeah, see, you really need to reply to eski's argument. You didn't do so here, and you've either not replied or sidestepped his argument both times he's made it. I can only surmise you don't have a logical reply. My surmission is bolstered by my assessment that his argument is nigh impossible to refute.

What we need to know is, how are we suddenly applying Constitutional rights like free speech (Citizens United) or free exercise of religion (Hobby Lobby) to corporations, which are abstract shells created by law to shield people in business from liability? If these people want their free exercise rights to apply to a business they own or run, they ought to run a partnership or proprietorship without limited liability. Only that way is it fair and legal to view the company as synonymous with its owners.

I fail to see how their belief that God is a higher authority than secular law, including the Constitution, has any bearing on the merits of the legal arguments undergirding either of these important cases. They can't use that belief to disregard the law we all live under. You think it's a nice "compromise" with the religious right, but this compromise is not acceptable because it is wrong under the Constitution, which is the one body of law that we all share.

I'm willing to compromise in many contexts for social harmony. For example, I am fine with banning late term abortions. But asking that we accept something which is an absurd and ridiculous interpretation of the Constitution is a bridge way too far.
 
Last edited:
Oh the Humanity! What are the Christian Bakers going to do when someone’s goes queer who works for them?
Well I dunno, but maybe they could like, join the rest of us in the 21st century and realize an employer has no business prying into the private lives of their employees or judging them according to their own arbitrary standards. *shrug*

😀
 
This court win should not need celebrating. This court ruling AND other rulings like this should be the norm and common sense decision by any U.S. court and from every sitting court justice. This ruling and other rulings like this should be of no surprise, no drama, no doubting of what the outcome would be or should be. For a free democracy as we assume we are, this ruling should be nothing but a small news article on the back page of the newspaper and have been fully expected as a no brainer court decision. Should have been.....
Anything and everything for promoting non-discrimination and equality for all people across America should never need see the inside of court room, local or Supreme. Why this would need a court decision in the first place should be the disturbing thing here. HEY FOLKS, I have a court case for this US Supreme Court, how about outlawing all bigotry, all hate, and all of the evil people within our politics? And, by starting with this current president and those three US Supreme Court justices that voted against. Lets send this president BACK HOME, and lets shame those three Supreme Court justices off the bench. THAT would be a decision that everyone could celebrate. And, another no brainer decision.
 
Mormonism literally did preach this for about a century so it’s not even remotely a hypothetical scenario.


So, nice try. Give another shot as to why this is the right balance. No more dodging, this is your PREFERRED POLICY. Own it!
Your wikipedia article does not support your argument. One,
Mormons don’t speak for all Christians. Second, the Mormon church became more progressive in its views along the same trajectory as American society. That you couldn’t find any contemporary examples is telling. By your logic, we should therefore judge all Muslims by the actions of ISIS and all Hindus by the recent actions of the Indian government.

The business owners aren’t doing anything, the corporation is. After all, separating themselves from their business is the entire purpose of the corporation that business owner had no requirement to create.

They made a choice to create a legal fiction separate from themselves so they wouldn’t be financially or legally liable. Can you explain why a corporation should not take on the financials of their owner but should instead take on their religion?

Let’s hear why that’s the right balance.
Corporations communicate value statements, which sometimes have a secular basis, but often have a religious basis if the Founder and CEO is a devout Christian. Chik-fil-A is a great example of where a privately owned company has “taken on” the religion of its founding family. Last I checked they’re not open on Sundays.

I already defined the right balance.

You owe the flying spaghetti monster an apology.
 
Your wikipedia article does not support your argument.

Don’t be silly, of course it does - in case you need a direct quote:

The church also advocated for segregation laws and enforced segregation in its facilities.

The church directly advocated for laws the civil rights act invalidated. It’s impossible to get more black and white than that. (Har)

One,Mormons don’t speak for all Christians. Second, the Mormon church became more progressive in its views along the same trajectory as American society.

Irrelevant. You said this was an imaginary scenario. To the contrary, it’s a scenario that existed while the Civil Rights Act was active and on the books, and by a major US religion with millions of members. Should Mormons at that time been able to ignore the civil rights act because of their religious convictions?

That you couldn’t find any contemporary examples is telling. By your logic, we should therefore judge all Muslims by the actions of ISIS and all Hindus by the recent actions of the Indian government.

This is a nonsensical statement, I’m not saying we should judge anyone, I’m saying by your preferred legal balance between religion and the law you think Mormons should have been able to continue segregation despite the civil rights act.

Defend this.

Corporations communicate value statements, which sometimes have a secular basis, but often have a religious basis if the Founder and CEO is a devout Christian. Chik-fil-A is a great example of where a privately owned company has “taken on” the religion of its founding family. Last I checked they’re not open on Sundays.

I already defined the right balance.

You owe the flying spaghetti monster an apology.
I’m not sure why you continue to duck my argument.

A corporation is a legal fiction created for the express purpose of separating the owner of a business from financial and legal liability for company operations. Under what logical standard should the creation of a corporation separate a person from a business for financial and legal reasons but not for religious ones?
 
Don’t be silly, of course it does - in case you need a direct quote:

The church directly advocated for laws the civil rights act invalidated. It’s impossible to get more black and white than that. (Har)
Scan further down in the wikipedia article where it talks about the Mormon position on segregation in post-segregation America. It’s impossible to get more black and white than that.

Irrelevant. You said this was an imaginary scenario. To the contrary, it’s a scenario that existed while the Civil Rights Act was active and on the books, and by a major US religion with millions of members. Should Mormons at that time been able to ignore the civil rights act because of their religious convictions?
Religion, like law, depends on precedence and the written word. There is no argument of religious precedence to support segregation, as that was more a societal issue. Christians in Italy would have no reason to support that position, it was unique to the American and South African cultures anchored in slavery. For something like abortion, there is a broader cross-cultural religious position that transcends sovereign nations.

This is a nonsensical statement, I’m not saying we should judge anyone, I’m saying by your preferred legal balance between religion and the law you think Mormons should have been able to continue segregation despite the civil rights act.
Your example is nonsensical.

Defend this.


I’m not sure why you continue to duck my argument.
I didn’t duck it, you simply choose not to acknowledge my response to it

A corporation is a legal fiction created for the express purpose of separating the owner of a business from financial and legal liability for company operations. Under what logical standard should the creation of a corporation separate a person from a business for financial and legal reasons but not for religious ones?
You deny then that corporations, businesses and companies can also assert their values and beliefs, often a reflection of its CEO, board of directors or leadership? Have there not been employee walkout in recent years because of clashes between company and employee or societal values? Have there not been high profile examples recently of CEOs stepping down for not projecting or adhering to corporate “values”. A corporation can take a moral, ethical or religious position despite the legal rationalization for its existence.
 
Scan further down in the wikipedia article where it talks about the Mormon position on segregation in post-segregation America. It’s impossible to get more black and white than that.

Religion, like law, depends on precedence and the written word. There is no argument of religious precedence to support segregation, as that was more a societal issue. Christians in Italy would have no reason to support that position, it was unique to the American and South African cultures anchored in slavery. For something like abortion, there is a broader cross-cultural religious position that transcends sovereign nations.

Your example is nonsensical.

You said there my scenario where a religion would support segregation was imaginary. I showed you one that explicitly endorsed segregation. Its explanation was not one of culture, but of religion, saying it was wrong to elevate people to the level of those God had intended to be their masters. Pretending this has not happened changes nothing.

Stop ducking a very simple question. By your logic if a religion in the United States believes in segregation as the Mormons did, by your logic they are free to disregard title VII of the Civil Rights Act as it relates to black people.

Support this position. You had no problem saying it was correct for gay people, you’re just embarrassed that your logic is identical for black people. Maybe that should indicate to you that your ‘balance’ is in fact very bad.

I didn’t duck it, you simply choose not to acknowledge my response to it

You deny then that corporations, businesses and companies can also assert their values and beliefs, often a reflection of its CEO, board of directors or leadership? Have there not been employee walkout in recent years because of clashes between company and employee or societal values? Have there not been high profile examples recently of CEOs stepping down for not projecting or adhering to corporate “values”. A corporation can take a moral, ethical or religious position despite the legal rationalization for its existence.
That was not my question, and it is not what the Hobby Lobby ruling states. Stop ducking the question.

For a THIRD time - under what logic is a corporation a separate entity from its owner for financial and legal purposes but not for religious purposes?

Oh and by the way it’s fine if you want to just state that you refuse to answer the question instead of continuing to dodge it endlessly.
 
There is no argument of religious precedence to support segregation, as that was more a societal issue.

The interesting thing about religion is that people read into it what they want. Many have made the argument that Deut 7:3 supports racial segregation. You might not think it does (and I would agree with you), but they did. What makes your reading of it the correct one?
The fact is that there are religious organizations today that promote racial segregation. The Christian Identity dominations are still around, it is just that none of them currently hold a controlling share in a major corporation, but that could change at any time. Then how would your argument hold?
 
How do you reconcile an ideology that acknowledges a higher authority than the governments and laws created by men, in a country that enshrines religious freedom as a core and fundamental right, who believe that life begins at conception?

Liberals have their own purity tests on this issue. It’s a lightning rod litmus test.

You don't let them use the Law to enforce their religious beliefs on others, particularly when it comes to sovereignty over a person's own body. If abortion is murder, then those innocent souls take a shortcut to heaven & the women have to deal with the wrath of God in the afterlife. It's not like the anti-abortionists frame it in terms of saving those women's souls.
 
The interesting thing about religion is that people read into it what they want. Many have made the argument that Deut 7:3 supports racial segregation. You might not think it does (and I would agree with you), but they did. What makes your reading of it the correct one?
The fact is that there are religious organizations today that promote racial segregation. The Christian Identity dominations are still around, it is just that none of them currently hold a controlling share in a major corporation, but that could change at any time. Then how would your argument hold?
Right? It's a simple question no one wants to answer because everyone basically agrees that segregation was wrong and the government was right to outlaw it.

If a religious person can opt out of the 'sex' part of 'race, color, religion, sex, or national origin' then why can't a religious person opt out of the 'race' part of 'race, color, religion, sex, or national origin'? According to Hobby Lobby, they should be able to. According to Starbuck, Hobby Lobby strikes the right balance. This indicates to me he might want to rethink what the right balance is.
 
And there is this owner/slave thing that christianity was real big on before it became politically incorrect.


Here's an interesting read on that subject.....


Take time to read the address Rhea made in 2011 to the Charleston Library Society, especially the section WHAT THE CHURCHES WERE SAYING.

Some excerpts: (while I have not put into quotes anything below, everything is taken verbatim from the above linked article)


Churches were the center of social and intellectual life in the south. That was where people congregated, where they learned about the world and their place in it, and where they received moral guidance. The clergy comprised the community’s cultural leaders and educators and carried tremendous influence with slaveholders and non-slaveholders alike. What were Southern pastors, preachers, and religious leaders telling their flock?

Southern clergy defended the morality of slavery through an elaborate scriptural defense built on the infallibility of the Bible, which they held up as the universal and objective standard for moral issues.

The Presbyterian theologian Robert Lewis Dabney reminded his fellow Southern clergymen that the Bible was the best way to explain slavery to the masses. “We must go before the nation with the Bible as the text, and ‘thus sayeth the lord’ as the answer,” he wrote. “We know that on the Bible argument the abolition party will be driven to unveil their true infidel tendencies. The Bible being bound to stand on our side, they have to come out and array themselves against the Bible.”

Reverend Furman of South Carolina insisted that the right to hold slaves was clearly sanctioned by the Holy Scriptures. He emphasized a practical side as well, warning that if Lincoln were elected, “every Negro in South Carolina and every other Southern state will be his own master; nay, more than that, will be the equal of every one of you. If you are tame enough to submit, abolition preachers will be at hand to consummate the marriage of your daughters to black husbands.”

A fellow reverend from Virginia agreed that on no other subject “are [the Bible’s] instructions more explicit, or their salutary tendency and influence more thoroughly tested and corroborated by experience than on the subject of slavery.” The Methodist Episcopal Church, South, asserted that slavery “has received the sanction of Jehova.” As a South Carolina Presbyterian concluded: “If the scriptures do not justify slavery, I know not what they do justify.”

As Pastor Dunwody of South Carolina summed up the case: “Thus, God, as he is infinitely wise, just and holy, never could authorize the practice of a moral evil. But god has authorized the practice of slavery, not only by the bare permission of his Providence, but the express provision of his word. Therefore, slavery is not a moral evil.” Since the Bible was the source for moral authority, the case was closed. “Man may err,” said the southern theologian James Thornwell, “but God can never lie.”

t was a corollary that to attack slavery was to attack the Bible and the word of God. If the Bible expressly ordained slave holding, to oppose the practice was a sin and an insult to God’s word. As the Baptist minister and author Thornton Stringfellow noted in his influential Biblical Defense of Slavery, “men from the north” demonstrated “palpable ignorance of the divine will.”

The Southern Presbyterian of S.C observed that there was a “religious character to the present struggle. Anti-slavery is essentially infidel. It wars upon the Bible, on the Church of Christ, on the truth of God, on the souls of men.” A Georgia preacher denounced abolitionists as “diametrically opposed to the letter and spirit of the Bible, and as subversive of all sound morality, as the worst ravings of infidelity.” The prominent South Carolina Presbyterian theologian James Henley Thornwell did not mince his words. “The parties in the conflict are not merely abolitionists and slaveholders. They are atheists, socialists, communists, red republicans, Jacobins on the one side, and friends of order and regulated freedom on the other. In one word, the world is the battleground – Christianity and Atheism the combatants; and the progress of humanity at stake.”



My own words begin again here......and these attitudes actually still simmer in many white, esp. evangelical, minds to this day.
 
Last edited:
And to be clear, that wasn't something that was only argued for slavery. There were plenty of "Christian" arguments against segregation as well. In Bob Jones University v United States (In 1983!), Bob Jones University tried to argue that the provision in the tax code that prohibited tax-exempt status for discriminatory organizations "cannot constitutionally be applied to schools that engage in racial discrimination on the basis of sincerely held religious beliefs".
 
The interesting thing about religion is that people read into it what they want. Many have made the argument that Deut 7:3 supports racial segregation. You might not think it does (and I would agree with you), but they did. What makes your reading of it the correct one?
The fact is that there are religious organizations today that promote racial segregation. The Christian Identity dominations are still around, it is just that none of them currently hold a controlling share in a major corporation, but that could change at any time. Then how would your argument hold?
Does this argument not also apply to the judicial branch, and the whole debate between intent and written word? Political parties are no less dogmatic than religious groups.

What makes any judge’s interpretation of the Constitution the correct one, and how do we balance different interpretations at different points in history?
 
Another genuine surprise—DACA stands protected. Trump cant effectively undo it without new legislation.

I honestly did not see this ruling coming in favor of Dreamers with this Court. Much more shocking than the LGBTQ discrimination decision IMHO.
 
Another genuine surprise—DACA stands protected. Trump cant effectively undo it without new legislation.

I honestly did not see this ruling coming in favor of Dreamers with this Court. Much more shocking than the LGBTQ discrimination decision IMHO.
Miller has to be pissed. That makes it a good day.
 
60ac5969e5ae4d1b32067d22ef146cab.jpg

Even crazier, EVERY SINGLE SCOTUS JUSTICE concurred at least in PART with the majority opinion (there was no straight up dissent!)

At least, that’s my uneducated opinion of what this means.
 
Another genuine surprise—DACA stands protected. Trump cant effectively undo it without new legislation.

I honestly did not see this ruling coming in favor of Dreamers with this Court. Much more shocking than the LGBTQ discrimination decision IMHO.

Trump must be absolutely apoplectic.
 
Back
Top