Kleins Get Their Day in Court

On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 11:14:21 PM UTC-5, Rudy Canoza

ss
It isn't the Kleins who are trying to punish someone for
beliefs.

The Kleins aren't being punished for beliefs, either.

Really? So they didn't get slapped with a $135,000 fine,
had their
cars vandalized, their business shut down, had death
threats against
their kids,etc.
None of that happened?

It happened. It happened because they broke the law.

It happened because of a bunch of intolerant bigots who could
not allow
the exercise of a belief system with which they disagree.

No, it didn't. Deciding to whom to sell cakes is not an
exercise of
religion.

In your opinion.

In the founders' opinions.

In your opinion, to the best of my knowledge, this was never
addressed by the founders.

It was. I've given you multiple citations. One in particular,
the scholarly article by Vincent Muñoz, had numerous citations of
the founders saying exactly that: that free exercise didn't
extend to all religious "interests" of believers. I also gave you
another article by Muñoz that touches on that.
The key item for you is that the founders *did* consider, and
quickly rejected, the idea that believers could receive exemptions
from generally applicable laws. Muñoz shows that very clearly.

What you miss is that the founding fathers would be appalled at the
idea that the state can require a citizen to be willing to act
contrary to his religious beliefs as a condition of being in
business. Such a "generally applicable" law would be rejected by
them.

It most assuredly would *NOT* be rejected by them. I know now that
you really didn't read - probably barely skimmed - the Muñoz
article I spoon-fed you. That article, complete with references to
founders' comments on debate over the amendments that became the
Bill of Rights, shows that they very carefully considered the notion
of "free exercise" creating "exemptions" from generally applicable
laws, and they categorically *REJECTED* such a notion. I would be
happy to furnish you with a link to the article - which you plainly
did not read *and* understand - again, or I could even e-mail you a
PDF download of it.

Look for a response later today,

Sorry about the late response, yesterday turned out to be a lot more
busier than anticipated.
After reading the two Munoz articles it seems that perhaps we are both
right. Your argument has been that the law under which the Kleins were
fined is unconstitutional because it regulates private sector
commerce, not because it violates the religious liberties of the
Kleins. I have not taken the position that the law is unconstitutional
because it dos violate the religious exercise rights of the Kleins. I
submit that it is not an either/or situation, but rather both/and.
Civil rights law which make it illegal for the private sector to
discriminate, is unconstitutional on its face, if for no other reason
than that the government is given no authority to regulate private
intercourse, unless that intercourse causes harm (robbery, murder and
the like).

Wrong, Hartung. The Constitution specifically authorizes
government to regulate commerce.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause

For that same reason the government may not pass
legislation which hinders the rights of religious people to practice
their religion.

Wrong again.
Pennsylvania parents sentenced in 2d faith-healing death
February 19 2014
A Pentecostal couple who believes in faith healing
has been sentenced to 3 1/2 to seven years in prison
for neglecting to take their sick son to the doctor.

How many kids have been killed and damaged BY THE GOVERNMENT FORCING
them to get vaccinated and become a petri dish experiment for the
governments beliefs?

--
That's Karma

Attila

2017-03-09 19:46:37 UTC

On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 14:26:26 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty

Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
How many kids have been killed and damaged BY THE GOVERNMENT FORCING
them to get vaccinated and become a petri dish experiment for the
governments beliefs?

How many have died as a result of catching a disease from an
unvaccinated kid?

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.

#BeamMeUpScotty

2017-03-09 20:16:23 UTC

Post by Attila
On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 14:26:26 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty

Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
How many kids have been killed and damaged BY THE GOVERNMENT FORCING
them to get vaccinated and become a petri dish experiment for the
governments beliefs?

How many have died as a result of catching a disease from an
unvaccinated kid?

Those religious parents weren't a problem? Their kid dying was a price
that the government is willing to accept when government kills a kid so
why imprison the parents for their beliefs? Who says government beliefs
are more correct than parents beliefs?

The government believes it's OK to infect kids with vaccines. If it
kills a few they think it's OK because they saved a few somewhere else?
Why is it, that their decision is more correct than the parents?

Those parents in the article lost their kid who didn't go to the doctors
but somewhere else some parents took their kids to doctors and the
doctors killed their child via incompetence and/or the germs and other
problems associated with medical facilities and doctors NOT knowing how
an individual patient will react to the drugs they put in them.

--
That's Karma

Bill Shatzer

2017-03-09 22:10:23 UTC

Post by Attila
On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 14:26:26 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty

Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
How many kids have been killed and damaged BY THE GOVERNMENT FORCING
them to get vaccinated and become a petri dish experiment for the
governments beliefs?

How many have died as a result of catching a disease from an
unvaccinated kid?

Medical science.

Stop clogging up the news groups with excessive and irrelevant cross
postings

peace and justice,

Attila

2017-03-10 01:56:25 UTC

On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 15:16:23 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty

Post by Attila
On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 14:26:26 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty

Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
How many kids have been killed and damaged BY THE GOVERNMENT FORCING
them to get vaccinated and become a petri dish experiment for the
governments beliefs?

How many have died as a result of catching a disease from an
unvaccinated kid?

It is more a question of protecting the public.

Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
The government believes it's OK to infect kids with vaccines. If it
kills a few they think it's OK because they saved a few somewhere else?
Why is it, that their decision is more correct than the parents?
Those parents in the article lost their kid who didn't go to the doctors
but somewhere else some parents took their kids to doctors and the
doctors killed their child via incompetence and/or the germs and other
problems associated with medical facilities and doctors NOT knowing how
an individual patient will react to the drugs they put in them.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.

#BeamMeUpScotty

2017-03-10 02:28:00 UTC

Post by Attila
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.
I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

I tend to agree with that for myself. I'm not quite Libertarian, and
I'm totally.... NOT a Liberal.

--
That's Karma

Attila

2017-03-10 10:00:52 UTC

On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 21:28:00 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty

Post by Attila
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.
I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

I tend to agree with that for myself. I'm not quite Libertarian, and
I'm totally.... NOT a Liberal.

I can't be a true conservative because I support the freedom of
choice, and oppose religion in public places.

I am both amused and disgusted by those who applaud the spread of the
freedom of religion and in the same breath advocate public support for
something that is a part of their particular superstition.

To them allowing prayer at public venues such as schools and sports
games is a victory as long as the prayer is their particular flavor. I
wonder what the reaction would be if a Hindu or Muslum prayer was
offered.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.

Jeffrey VanRensselaer

2017-03-10 16:57:04 UTC

Post by Attila
On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 21:28:00 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty

Post by Attila
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.
I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

I tend to agree with that for myself. I'm not quite Libertarian, and
I'm totally.... NOT a Liberal.

I can't be a true conservative because I support the freedom of
choice, and oppose religion in public places.

You're a sophomoric statist who never learned to think critically.
Nothing could be more obvious.

Attila

2017-03-10 21:48:10 UTC

On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 08:57:04 -0800, Jeffrey VanRensselaer

Post by Attila
On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 21:28:00 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty

Post by Attila
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.
I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

I tend to agree with that for myself. I'm not quite Libertarian, and
I'm totally.... NOT a Liberal.

I can't be a true conservative because I support the freedom of
choice, and oppose religion in public places.

You're a sophomoric statist who never learned to think critically.
Nothing could be more obvious.

Evidently you have nothing additional to contribute other than an
attempt to start an insult swapping session. I totally admit you are
the bigger asshole and I will retire from the field.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.

Jeffrey VanRensselaer

2017-03-10 22:18:23 UTC

Post by Attila
On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 08:57:04 -0800, Jeffrey VanRensselaer

Post by Attila
On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 21:28:00 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty

Post by Attila
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.
I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

I tend to agree with that for myself. I'm not quite Libertarian, and
I'm totally.... NOT a Liberal.

I can't be a true conservative because I support the freedom of
choice, and oppose religion in public places.

You're a sophomoric statist who never learned to think critically.
Nothing could be more obvious.

Evidently you have nothing additional to contribute other than an
attempt to start an insult swapping session.

It's a shame if you are insulted by an obvious fact.

Attila

2017-03-11 00:32:39 UTC

On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 14:18:23 -0800, Jeffrey VanRensselaer

Post by Attila
On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 08:57:04 -0800, Jeffrey VanRensselaer

Post by Attila
On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 21:28:00 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty

Post by Attila
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.
I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

I tend to agree with that for myself. I'm not quite Libertarian, and
I'm totally.... NOT a Liberal.

I can't be a true conservative because I support the freedom of
choice, and oppose religion in public places.

You're a sophomoric statist who never learned to think critically.
Nothing could be more obvious.

Evidently you have nothing additional to contribute other than an
attempt to start an insult swapping session.

It's a shame if you are insulted by an obvious fact.

I agree there are certain obvious facts here. And I am hardly
insulted by such juvenile and trivial attacks. Mildly amused is
nearer the truth.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservative so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.

Jeffrey VanRensselaer

2017-03-11 01:16:38 UTC

Post by Attila
On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 14:18:23 -0800, Jeffrey VanRensselaer

Post by Attila
On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 08:57:04 -0800, Jeffrey VanRensselaer

Post by Attila
On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 21:28:00 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty

Post by Attila
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.
I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

I tend to agree with that for myself. I'm not quite Libertarian, and
I'm totally.... NOT a Liberal.

I can't be a true conservative because I support the freedom of
choice, and oppose religion in public places.

You're a sophomoric statist who never learned to think critically.
Nothing could be more obvious.

Evidently you have nothing additional to contribute other than an
attempt to start an insult swapping session.

It's a shame if you are insulted by an obvious fact.

I agree there are certain obvious facts here.

You are insulted that I have pointed out that you are a dull, plodding
statist with no critical thinking ability who is only parroting some
bullshit spoon-fed to you by a statist community college instructor a
few decades ago.

Attila

2017-03-11 10:31:49 UTC

On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 17:16:38 -0800, Jeffrey VanRensselaer

Post by Attila
On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 14:18:23 -0800, Jeffrey VanRensselaer

Post by Attila
On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 08:57:04 -0800, Jeffrey VanRensselaer

Post by Attila
On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 21:28:00 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty

Post by Attila
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.
I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

I tend to agree with that for myself. I'm not quite Libertarian, and
I'm totally.... NOT a Liberal.

I can't be a true conservative because I support the freedom of
choice, and oppose religion in public places.

You're a sophomoric statist who never learned to think critically.
Nothing could be more obvious.

Evidently you have nothing additional to contribute other than an
attempt to start an insult swapping session.

It's a shame if you are insulted by an obvious fact.

I agree there are certain obvious facts here.

You keep claiming I am insulted. I have no idea why since your
pathetic attempts to drive away any disagreement by what you consider
aggressive attacks are actually rather pathetic.

For the record my advanced education was primarily technical in
nature, was at nothing like a community college (in fact you would
recognize the name if I included it here since it is internationally
known) , and I had no time for any courses involving anything remotely
like any subject approaching the freedom of choice other than a basic
survey course in law.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservative so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.

Jeffrey VanRensselaer

2017-03-11 14:48:25 UTC

Post by Attila
On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 17:16:38 -0800, Jeffrey VanRensselaer

Post by Attila
On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 14:18:23 -0800, Jeffrey VanRensselaer

Post by Attila
On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 08:57:04 -0800, Jeffrey VanRensselaer

Post by Attila
On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 21:28:00 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty

Post by Attila
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.
I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

I tend to agree with that for myself. I'm not quite Libertarian, and
I'm totally.... NOT a Liberal.

I can't be a true conservative because I support the freedom of
choice, and oppose religion in public places.

You're a sophomoric statist who never learned to think critically.
Nothing could be more obvious.

Evidently you have nothing additional to contribute other than an
attempt to start an insult swapping session.

It's a shame if you are insulted by an obvious fact.

I agree there are certain obvious facts here.

You keep claiming I am insulted.

You proved it already.

Attila

2017-03-11 16:04:04 UTC

On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 06:48:25 -0800, Jeffrey VanRensselaer

Post by Attila
On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 17:16:38 -0800, Jeffrey VanRensselaer

Post by Attila
On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 14:18:23 -0800, Jeffrey VanRensselaer

Post by Attila
On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 08:57:04 -0800, Jeffrey VanRensselaer

Post by Attila
On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 21:28:00 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty

Post by Attila
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.
I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

I tend to agree with that for myself. I'm not quite Libertarian, and
I'm totally.... NOT a Liberal.

I can't be a true conservative because I support the freedom of
choice, and oppose religion in public places.

You're a sophomoric statist who never learned to think critically.
Nothing could be more obvious.

Evidently you have nothing additional to contribute other than an
attempt to start an insult swapping session.

It's a shame if you are insulted by an obvious fact.

I agree there are certain obvious facts here.

You keep claiming I am insulted.

You proved it already.

More amused, but I really don't care what you claim.

--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservative so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.

Jeffrey VanRensselaer

2017-03-12 18:16:25 UTC

Post by Attila
On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 06:48:25 -0800, Jeffrey VanRensselaer

Post by Attila
On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 17:16:38 -0800, Jeffrey VanRensselaer

Post by Attila
On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 14:18:23 -0800, Jeffrey VanRensselaer

Post by Attila
On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 08:57:04 -0800, Jeffrey VanRensselaer

Post by Attila
On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 21:28:00 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty

Post by Attila
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.
I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

I tend to agree with that for myself. I'm not quite Libertarian, and
I'm totally.... NOT a Liberal.

I can't be a true conservative because I support the freedom of
choice, and oppose religion in public places.

You're a sophomoric statist who never learned to think critically.
Nothing could be more obvious.

Evidently you have nothing additional to contribute other than an
attempt to start an insult swapping session.

It's a shame if you are insulted by an obvious fact.

I agree there are certain obvious facts here.

You keep claiming I am insulted.

You proved it already.

More amused, but

No.

Attila

2017-03-12 18:32:40 UTC

On Sun, 12 Mar 2017 11:16:25 -0700, Jeffrey VanRensselaer

Post by Attila
On Sat, 11 Mar 2017 06:48:25 -0800, Jeffrey VanRensselaer

Post by Attila
On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 17:16:38 -0800, Jeffrey VanRensselaer

Post by Attila
On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 14:18:23 -0800, Jeffrey VanRensselaer

Post by Attila
On Fri, 10 Mar 2017 08:57:04 -0800, Jeffrey VanRensselaer

Post by Attila
On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 21:28:00 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty

Post by Attila
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.
I am not conservitive so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

I tend to agree with that for myself. I'm not quite Libertarian, and
I'm totally.... NOT a Liberal.

I can't be a true conservative because I support the freedom of
choice, and oppose religion in public places.

You're a sophomoric statist who never learned to think critically.
Nothing could be more obvious.

Evidently you have nothing additional to contribute other than an
attempt to start an insult swapping session.

It's a shame if you are insulted by an obvious fact.

I agree there are certain obvious facts here.

You keep claiming I am insulted.

You proved it already.

More amused, but

No.

I am restoring the response you clipped:

More amused, but I really don't care what you claim.

It still fits. I don't.
--
Some of the Republican positions I find disgusting and abhorrent.
Most of the Democratic positions I find terrifying.

I am not conservative so much as a rabid anti-liberal.

Any day now I expect some liberal to demand a government
guaranteed above average income for every person.

Every illegal alien is a criminal.
No amnesty or work permit under any name or for any reason.
Deportation upon identification as the only option.

If you must text and drive please kill yourself quickly
before you run into me.

Bill Shatzer

2017-03-11 04:00:10 UTC

Post by Attila
Every illegal alien is a criminal.

Actually, illegal presence within the United States is not, of itself, a
criminal offense,

Boorish cross-posting to numerous irrelevant groups deleted.

peace and justice,

Pipewrench Peterson

2017-03-10 02:32:37 UTC

Post by Attila
On Thu, 9 Mar 2017 14:26:26 -0500, #BeamMeUpScotty

Post by #BeamMeUpScotty
How many kids have been killed and damaged BY THE GOVERNMENT FORCING
them to get vaccinated

None. The government has never forced any kid to be vaccinated.

2017-03-09 22:32:48 UTC

fake flooding from drug dealer scum posting junk messages to hide
behind traffic they steal your credit card numbers too its from peter j
ross greg hall and alt usenet kooks report identity thieves and pirates
to fbi . i win

On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 11:14:21 PM

On 3/6/2017 7:23 PM, David Hartung

ss It isn't the Kleins who are trying
to punish someone for beliefs.

The Kleins aren't being punished for
beliefs, either.

Really? So they didn't get slapped with a
$135,000 fine, had their cars vandalized,
their business shut down, had death threats
against their kids,etc.
None of that happened?

It happened. It happened because they broke
the law.

It happened because of a bunch of intolerant
bigots who could not allow the exercise of a
belief system with which they disagree.

No, it didn't. Deciding to whom to sell cakes is
not an exercise of religion.

In your opinion.

In the founders' opinions.

In your opinion, to the best of my knowledge, this was
never addressed by the founders.

It was. I've given you multiple citations. One in
particular, the scholarly article by Vincent MuÃ±oz, had
that free exercise didn't extend to all religious
"interests" of believers. I also gave you another
article by MuÃ±oz that touches on that.
The key item for you is that the founders *did* consider,
and quickly rejected, the idea that believers could
receive exemptions from generally applicable laws.
MuÃ±oz shows that very clearly.

What you miss is that the founding fathers would be
appalled at the idea that the state can require a citizen
to be willing to act contrary to his religious beliefs as a
condition of being in business. Such a "generally
applicable" law would be rejected by them.

It most assuredly would *NOT* be rejected by them. I know
now that you really didn't read - probably barely skimmed -
the MuÃ±oz article I spoon-fed you. That article, complete
with references to founders' comments on debate over the
amendments that became the Bill of Rights, shows that they
very carefully considered the notion of "free exercise"
creating "exemptions" from generally applicable laws, and
they categorically *REJECTED* such a notion. I would be
happy to furnish you with a link to the article - which you
plainly did not read *and* understand - again, or I could
even e-mail you a PDF download of it.

Look for a response later today,

Sorry about the late response, yesterday turned out to be a lot
more busier than anticipated.
After reading the two Munoz articles it seems that perhaps we are
both right. Your argument has been that the law under which the
Kleins were fined is unconstitutional because it regulates
private sector commerce, not because it violates the religious
liberties of the Kleins. I have not taken the position that the
law is unconstitutional because it dos violate the religious
exercise rights of the Kleins. I submit that it is not an
either/or situation, but rather both/and. Civil rights law which
make it illegal for the private sector to discriminate, is
unconstitutional on its face, if for no other reason than that
the government is given no authority to regulate private
intercourse, unless that intercourse causes harm (robbery, murder
and the like).

Wrong, Hartung. The Constitution specifically authorizes government
to regulate commerce.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause

For that same reason the government may not pass legislation
which hinders the rights of religious people to practice their
religion.

Wrong again.
Pennsylvania parents sentenced in 2d faith-healing death February
19 2014
A Pentecostal couple who believes in faith healing has been
sentenced to 3 1/2 to seven years in prison for neglecting to take
their sick son to the doctor.

How many kids have been killed and damaged BY THE GOVERNMENT FORCING
them to get vaccinated and become a petri dish experiment for the
governments beliefs?

--
i am & the great . i win

Turin Turd

2017-03-10 06:04:37 UTC

Post by &
fake flooding from drug dealer scum posting junk messages to hide
behind traffic they steal your credit card numbers too its from peter j
ross greg hall and alt usenet kooks report identity thieves and pirates
to fbi . i win

On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 11:14:21 PM

On 3/6/2017 7:23 PM, David Hartung

ss It isn't the Kleins who are trying
to punish someone for beliefs.

The Kleins aren't being punished for
beliefs, either.

Really? So they didn't get slapped with a
$135,000 fine, had their cars vandalized,
their business shut down, had death threats
against their kids,etc.
None of that happened?

It happened. It happened because they broke
the law.

It happened because of a bunch of intolerant
bigots who could not allow the exercise of a
belief system with which they disagree.

No, it didn't. Deciding to whom to sell cakes is
not an exercise of religion.

In your opinion.

In the founders' opinions.

In your opinion, to the best of my knowledge, this was
never addressed by the founders.

What you miss is that the founding fathers would be
appalled at the idea that the state can require a citizen
to be willing to act contrary to his religious beliefs as a
condition of being in business. Such a "generally
applicable" law would be rejected by them.

Look for a response later today,

Sorry about the late response, yesterday turned out to be a lot
more busier than anticipated.
After reading the two Munoz articles it seems that perhaps we are
both right. Your argument has been that the law under which the
Kleins were fined is unconstitutional because it regulates
private sector commerce, not because it violates the religious
liberties of the Kleins. I have not taken the position that the
law is unconstitutional because it dos violate the religious
exercise rights of the Kleins. I submit that it is not an
either/or situation, but rather both/and. Civil rights law which
make it illegal for the private sector to discriminate, is
unconstitutional on its face, if for no other reason than that
the government is given no authority to regulate private
intercourse, unless that intercourse causes harm (robbery, murder
and the like).

Wrong, Hartung. The Constitution specifically authorizes government
to regulate commerce.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause

For that same reason the government may not pass legislation
which hinders the rights of religious people to practice their
religion.

Wrong again.
Pennsylvania parents sentenced in 2d faith-healing death February
19 2014
A Pentecostal couple who believes in faith healing has been
sentenced to 3 1/2 to seven years in prison for neglecting to take
their sick son to the doctor.

How many kids have been killed and damaged BY THE GOVERNMENT FORCING
them to get vaccinated and become a petri dish experiment for the
governments beliefs?

FOAD TURIN you moron

Marxette

2017-03-10 14:55:35 UTC

:) Not by the real Turin an' not who Turin is. The people using this
tactic are a gang of cyber criminals, here's a borrowed quote wrt to
some of their other activities:

"...a gang of online thieves who do specialize in identity theft and
forgeries among other cyber activities.

The purpose of this post was not trolling or fun or personal vendettas.
It was gang intimidation oriented toward facilitating criminal
activities; which, includes the trading of drugs, pornography and
copyrighted works. This group uses "alt.usenet.kooks" as an operating
base on Usenet. They are well known for stalking and intimidation of a
much more serious nature against targeted individuals.

You are encouraged to report such behavior to federal authorities
whenever it is encountered."

Post by Turin Turd

Post by &
fake flooding from drug dealer scum posting junk messages to hide
behind traffic they steal your credit card numbers too its from
peter j ross greg hall and alt usenet kooks report identity thieves
and pirates to fbi . i win

On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 11:14:21

On 3/6/2017 7:23 PM, David Hartung

ss It isn't the Kleins who are
trying to punish someone for
beliefs.

The Kleins aren't being punished for
beliefs, either.

Really? So they didn't get slapped with
a $135,000 fine, had their cars
vandalized, their business shut down,
had death threats against their
kids,etc.
None of that happened?

It happened. It happened because they
broke the law.

It happened because of a bunch of
intolerant bigots who could not allow the
exercise of a belief system with which they
disagree.

No, it didn't. Deciding to whom to sell
cakes is not an exercise of religion.

In your opinion.

In the founders' opinions.

In your opinion, to the best of my knowledge, this
was never addressed by the founders.

It was. I've given you multiple citations. One in
particular, the scholarly article by Vincent MuÃ±oz,
had numerous citations of the founders saying exactly
that: that free exercise didn't extend to all
religious "interests" of believers. I also gave you
another article by MuÃ±oz that touches on that.
The key item for you is that the founders *did*
consider, and quickly rejected, the idea that
believers could receive exemptions from generally
applicable laws. MuÃ±oz shows that very clearly.

What you miss is that the founding fathers would be
appalled at the idea that the state can require a
citizen to be willing to act contrary to his religious
beliefs as a condition of being in business. Such a
"generally applicable" law would be rejected by them.

It most assuredly would *NOT* be rejected by them. I
know now that you really didn't read - probably barely
skimmed - the MuÃ±oz article I spoon-fed you. That
article, complete with references to founders' comments
on debate over the amendments that became the Bill of
Rights, shows that they very carefully considered the
notion of "free exercise" creating "exemptions" from
generally applicable laws, and they categorically
*REJECTED* such a notion. I would be happy to furnish
you with a link to the article - which you plainly did
not read *and* understand - again, or I could even e-mail
you a PDF download of it.

Look for a response later today,

Sorry about the late response, yesterday turned out to be a
lot more busier than anticipated.
After reading the two Munoz articles it seems that perhaps we
are both right. Your argument has been that the law under
which the Kleins were fined is unconstitutional because it
regulates private sector commerce, not because it violates
the religious liberties of the Kleins. I have not taken the
position that the law is unconstitutional because it dos
violate the religious exercise rights of the Kleins. I submit
that it is not an either/or situation, but rather both/and.
Civil rights law which make it illegal for the private sector
to discriminate, is unconstitutional on its face, if for no
other reason than that the government is given no authority
to regulate private intercourse, unless that intercourse
causes harm (robbery, murder and the like).

Wrong, Hartung. The Constitution specifically authorizes
government to regulate commerce.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause

For that same reason the government may not pass legislation
which hinders the rights of religious people to practice
their religion.

Wrong again.
Pennsylvania parents sentenced in 2d faith-healing death
February 19 2014
A Pentecostal couple who believes in faith healing has been
sentenced to 3 1/2 to seven years in prison for neglecting to
take their sick son to the doctor.

How many kids have been killed and damaged BY THE GOVERNMENT
FORCING them to get vaccinated and become a petri dish experiment
for the governments beliefs?

FOAD TURIN you moron

--
Marxette

Turin Turd

2017-03-11 08:13:52 UTC

Post by Marxette
:) Not by the real Turin an' not who Turin is. The people using this
tactic are a gang of cyber criminals, here's a borrowed quote wrt to
"...a gang of online thieves who do specialize in identity theft and
forgeries among other cyber activities.
The purpose of this post was not trolling or fun or personal vendettas.
It was gang intimidation oriented toward facilitating criminal
activities; which, includes the trading of drugs, pornography and
copyrighted works. This group uses "alt.usenet.kooks" as an operating
base on Usenet. They are well known for stalking and intimidation of a
much more serious nature against targeted individuals.
You are encouraged to report such behavior to federal authorities
whenever it is encountered."

Post by Turin Turd

Post by &
fake flooding from drug dealer scum posting junk messages to hide
behind traffic they steal your credit card numbers too its from
peter j ross greg hall and alt usenet kooks report identity thieves
and pirates to fbi . i win

On Monday, March 6, 2017 at 11:14:21

On 3/6/2017 7:23 PM, David Hartung

ss It isn't the Kleins who are
trying to punish someone for
beliefs.

The Kleins aren't being punished for
beliefs, either.

Really? So they didn't get slapped with
a $135,000 fine, had their cars
vandalized, their business shut down,
had death threats against their
kids,etc.
None of that happened?

It happened. It happened because they
broke the law.

It happened because of a bunch of
intolerant bigots who could not allow the
exercise of a belief system with which they
disagree.

No, it didn't. Deciding to whom to sell
cakes is not an exercise of religion.

In your opinion.

In the founders' opinions.

In your opinion, to the best of my knowledge, this
was never addressed by the founders.

What you miss is that the founding fathers would be
appalled at the idea that the state can require a
citizen to be willing to act contrary to his religious
beliefs as a condition of being in business. Such a
"generally applicable" law would be rejected by them.

It most assuredly would *NOT* be rejected by them. I
know now that you really didn't read - probably barely
skimmed - the MuÃ±oz article I spoon-fed you. That
article, complete with references to founders' comments
on debate over the amendments that became the Bill of
Rights, shows that they very carefully considered the
notion of "free exercise" creating "exemptions" from
generally applicable laws, and they categorically
*REJECTED* such a notion. I would be happy to furnish
you with a link to the article - which you plainly did
not read *and* understand - again, or I could even e-mail
you a PDF download of it.

Look for a response later today,

Sorry about the late response, yesterday turned out to be a
lot more busier than anticipated.
After reading the two Munoz articles it seems that perhaps we
are both right. Your argument has been that the law under
which the Kleins were fined is unconstitutional because it
regulates private sector commerce, not because it violates
the religious liberties of the Kleins. I have not taken the
position that the law is unconstitutional because it dos
violate the religious exercise rights of the Kleins. I submit
that it is not an either/or situation, but rather both/and.
Civil rights law which make it illegal for the private sector
to discriminate, is unconstitutional on its face, if for no
other reason than that the government is given no authority
to regulate private intercourse, unless that intercourse
causes harm (robbery, murder and the like).

Wrong, Hartung. The Constitution specifically authorizes
government to regulate commerce.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause

For that same reason the government may not pass legislation
which hinders the rights of religious people to practice
their religion.

Wrong again.
Pennsylvania parents sentenced in 2d faith-healing death
February 19 2014
A Pentecostal couple who believes in faith healing has been
sentenced to 3 1/2 to seven years in prison for neglecting to
take their sick son to the doctor.

How many kids have been killed and damaged BY THE GOVERNMENT
FORCING them to get vaccinated and become a petri dish experiment
for the governments beliefs?

FOAD TURIN you moron

Marxette

2017-03-11 16:56:20 UTC

Post by Marxette
:) Not by the real Turin an' not who Turin is. The people using
this tactic are a gang of cyber criminals, here's a borrowed quote
"...a gang of online thieves who do specialize in identity theft
and forgeries among other cyber activities.
The purpose of this post was not trolling or fun or personal
vendettas. It was gang intimidation oriented toward facilitating
criminal activities; which, includes the trading of drugs,
pornography and copyrighted works. This group uses
"alt.usenet.kooks" as an operating base on Usenet. They are well
known for stalking and intimidation of a much more serious nature
against targeted individuals.
You are encouraged to report such behavior to federal authorities
whenever it is encountered."

Post by Turin Turd

Post by &
fake flooding from drug dealer scum posting junk messages to
hide behind traffic they steal your credit card numbers too its
from peter j ross greg hall and alt usenet kooks report
identity thieves and pirates to fbi . i win