Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: P-Marlowe; xzins; blue-duncan; Buggman; Congressman Billybob
If you cannot see the slippery cliff that you are leaping from, then your legal education has trumped your common sense and your theological education.

You are aware that the slippery slope is a logical fallacy? It's an unwarranted extrapolation. Homosexuality is legal. Prostitution and polygamy are not - so anti-discrimination claims cannot possibly apply to them.

96 posted on 03/17/2006 7:14:42 AM PST by jude24 ("The Church is a harlot, but she is my mother." - St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies ]


To: jude24; xzins
It's an unwarranted extrapolation. Homosexuality is legal. Prostitution and polygamy are not - so anti-discrimination claims cannot possibly apply to them.

Baloney. We are not talking about skin color, we are talking about behavior.

What about transvetitism, or adultery or bestiality (which is actually legal in most states-- as long as you don't harm the animal)?

Can you discriminate based on those legal statuses?

Should churches (which enjoy 501(c)(3) tax status) be able to discriminate against homosexuals, adulterers, transvestites or atheists in non-ministerial positions, like janitors or gardeners or boy scout leaders? Huh?

And why should a church which enjoys a special tax status be allowed to prevent homosexuals or transvestites or transsexuals or dog lovers from becoming a part of the paid ministry? Isn't that discrminination? Doesn't the 501(c)(3) status require that these organizations comply with anti-discrimination laws that apply to everyone else? Isn't it a violation of equal protection to give religious ministries a pass when it comes to invidious discrimination?

You don't believe there is a slippery slope? You obviously haven't lived long enough to watch it happen. xzins and I have.

As it was in the days of Noah.....

Figure it out.

97 posted on 03/17/2006 7:25:06 AM PST by P-Marlowe (((172 * 3.141592653589793238462) / 180) * 10 = 30.0196631)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies ]

To: jude24
Homosexuality WAS illegal. The Supreme Court decided to legalize it. Scalia is exactly right. There is no legal basis left to deny the other sexual activities involving adults, based on the Court's decision in the Texas sodomy case.

The Framers of the Constitution looked at all the pre-existing the state constitutions, when they were drafting the US Constitution. Exactly one had a "supra-legislature." It was called the Council of Revision, and it had the power to reject laws that had been duly passed by the legislature. (Judges were part, but not all, of the membership of that Council.)

The Framers deliberately rejected the idea that any equivalent of the Council of Revision should be part of the US Constitution. Yet in our day, the Court has become exactly such a creature, in the grip of Justices who do not obey their oath of office to respect and defend the Constitution.

First indications from the new Roberts Court, with John Roberts as Chief Justice and Justice Alito replacing Justice O'Connor, are very favorable. It looks like the Court is moving away from that false role it had previously assumed. This is right in line with what Scalia is talking about.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column: "Daniel in the Lion's Den -- A Red Candidate in a Blue Meeting"

108 posted on 03/17/2006 10:59:36 AM PST by Congressman Billybob (www.ArmorforCongress.com RIGHT NOW. I need your help.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson