So the redacted Mueller Report has been out for a while...

[Kurieuo]

What does it mean to be pro-life DB?

On a scale of (lowest) 1-10 (highest) of social issues out there, how highly does this issue rank for you? For me, knowing that innocent baby lives are being massacred, it is an easy 10. More than any other issue, it defines how I vote and a great many other people.

For me, being "pro-life" (or more correctly put, against the wholesale massacre of innocent human life especially infants who have no say in their own demise), I couldn't care less about some "conviction" if such doesn't bring about positive change and results.

I think we can thank Mike Pence for many of the 'results' that you point out in your post.
And I have acknowledged many times that I think choosing Mike Pence as Vice President was a great decision by Trump.

So if Mike Pence is able to get some pro-life policies instituted by the Trump administration, does that mean that we overlook Trump's dishonest, immoral, lawless, and corrupt behavior.
Do we just turn a blind eye when the President of the United States violates the laws he's sworn to uphold and then uses the power of his office to interfere with law enforcement?
Is the President of the United beyond the reach of the law?

Trump has taken some actions that I fully support... as well as some that I oppose.

But just because Trump has taken some actions that I support, that does not mean I can support a lawless corrupt President who believes that he is above the law.

If the Republicans choose Mike Pence (who is truly pro-life) as their candidate in 2020 I will vote for him without hesitation.

I'm wouldn't be so sure to chaulk it up to just Mike Pence, though I expect he helped to better acquaint Trump.

Here I thought being dishonest, immoral, lawless (internationally so) and more or less corrupt was like a pre-requisite for POTUS -- judging from previous presidencies. And, aren't all POTUS' to some degree above the law, congress, vetoing power, etc.

It seems you dwell only on the negatives, like you and Ed are polar extreme to Abe. I wouldn't mind hearing some more balance. Noone is entirely evil, unless they're the devil. To many Trump is the devil, but that's not right. There's good, and there's bad. Even Hillary, she ain't all bad.

Mike Pence, clearly a better man. BUT, then, I'm not sure he'd fair well in the limelight as a front man. He doesn't seem to have the right nature for a POTUS. As such, I'm not sure how effective he'd be.

[DBowling]

Here I thought being dishonest, immoral, lawless (internationally so) and more or less corrupt was like a pre-requisite for POTUS

I fundamentally disagree...
The President of the United States is sworn to uphold the laws of our country.
And when the President violates those laws he is violating his oath of office.

I do not accept the premise that the President of the United states should be able to engage in criminal activity with impunity.
I haven't seen anyone make the assertion that using the Constitutional Presidential power of the veto is lawless.
However...
Making illegal hush money payments to pornstars during an election to hide his affairs from his wife and the American people IS lawless.
Using money from the 'charitable' Trump Foundation for personal and business use IS lawless.
Interfering with law enforcement IS lawless.

It seems you dwell only on the negatives

That's just not factually true... I compliment Trump's choice of Pence in the very post you quote.
And in previous posts I've supported tax reform and Trump's picks for the Supreme court.

However, just because Trump has taken some actions that I support, that does not mean I am willing to become an apologist for his dishonest, lawless, and corrupt behavior.
And I am convinced it is imperative for our country that in 2020, the American people remove from office a corrupt President who considers himself to be beyond the reach of the laws of our country.

[edwardmurphy]

And I will push back against the notion that my religious views are somehow illegitimate and hateful because I happen to believe what the Bible teaches about sin, and God's design for marriage and the family.

The issue has never been personal beliefs. You're free to believe whatever you want and to worship in whatever manner you deem appropriate. You always have been. The issue is with (some) conservative Christians trying to force everyone else to follow the rules of their faith.

That said... hate against anyone is wrong!

I'm with you there.

In this country Pete has the right to hold whatever religious views he wishes.
And so do I.

That's the thing, though. He may be entitled to his religious beliefs, but conservative Christians (not all of them, obviously, but that's the group from which the activists were drawn) actively worked to deny him the right to live his life as he saw fit. Freedom to believe what you want while simultaneously being denied the right to act on those beliefs isn't exactly freedom.

When you look at the battle between gay rights activists and anti gay rights activists it's pretty one sided. Christianity has never been illegal in this country, while the last anti-gay legislation was on the boks until 2003. Christian marriage has always been both legal and seen as ideal behavior, while gay marriage only became legal when anti-gay marriage laws were ruled unconstitutional in 2015. Declining to do business with someone because they're Christian has never been acceptable behavior in the US, but for most of our history it's been a given that a Christian could deny a job, apartment, or service to a homosexual. In some places it still is, and there are Christians fighting like hell to keep it that way.

You don't have to agree with Buttigeig's views, but can you at least see why he might have a chip on his shoulder?

And if Pete is going to publicly attack my religious views then I have the right to decide not to vote for him.

Probably a moot point. He's not likely to be on the ballot.

[DBowling]

And I will push back against the notion that my religious views are somehow illegitimate and hateful because I happen to believe what the Bible teaches about sin, and God's design for marriage and the family.

The issue has never been personal beliefs. You're free to believe whatever you want and to worship in whatever manner you deem appropriate. You always have been. The issue is with (some) conservative Christians trying to force everyone else to follow the rules of their faith.

Which is kind of putting the cart before the horse from a Christian perspective.
The Bible teaches that Jesus needs to transform the heart of a person before they are even capable of behaving like a Christian should.

In this country Pete has the right to hold whatever religious views he wishes.
And so do I.

That's the thing, though. He may be entitled to his religious beliefs, but conservative Christians (not all of them, obviously, but that's the group from which the activists were drawn) actively worked to deny him the right to live his life as he saw fit. Freedom to believe what you want while simultaneously being denied the right to act on those beliefs isn't exactly freedom.

That particular pendulum swings both ways. And that is the crux of the issue.

Now if we follow the example of Jesus, there is no Christian or Scriptural basis for refusing to interact with, work with, or do business with people because of behavior that some might consider to be 'sinful'.
Again... the Bible explicitly says that everyone is a sinner.
And Jesus himself deliberately interacted with 'sinners'.
So if a person doesn't want to do business with 'sinners', then he will go broke since there is no one on the planet for him to do business with.

For me, ground zero is when the state attempts to coerce a person into actively participating in an activity that is immoral to that person based on their religious beliefs.

For example I think it would be wrong for the state to attempt to coerce someone who does not believe in Jesus to participate in an Easter celebration that celebrates the resurrection of Jesus.

[Philip]

Politics will never sort out right and wrong! Because it's a process that seeks to wield power by those in opposing camps. And I so often see great generalizations about what Christian groups or individuals say this or that - as if they represent all. There are both Christians and non-Christians taking on tactics to suppress those they oppose. But how many (numbers-wise), as these generalizations prove nothing! And there are always subgroups amongst any greater group that cause much of the friction and mayhem - as opposed to civilized discussions. Just like, there are many militant anti-Christian activists who'd love nothing more than to legally go after Christians who want to live out their faith Biblically, by making certain decisions they make as illegal, fineable, and jailable! But does that represent ALL of the opposition to those of Christian beliefs - is it ALL that extreme, hostile, and intent upon ruining Christians or punishing them for their living out their beliefs? Course not! So, these generalizations aren't particularly helpful when asserting what Christians want to stop the free speech or whatever of non-Christians, or gay activists, etc.

Society and reality are far more complex than the talking heads with mics (designed mostly to sell commercial space) would have us believe!

[edwardmurphy]

Which is kind of putting the cart before the horse from a Christian perspective.
The Bible teaches that Jesus needs to transform the heart of a person before they are even capable of behaving like a Christian should.

Seems like if you swapped his husband for a wife Pete Buttigeig would be a model Christian. Let's face it - homosexuality gets a whole lot more attention than any of the other sins.

In this country Pete has the right to hold whatever religious views he wishes.
And so do I.

I agree. The liberal position takes that exact assertion and expands it to include most consensual behavior that doesn't harm others.

Now if we follow the example of Jesus, there is no Christian or Scriptural basis for refusing to interact with, work with, or do business with people because of behavior that some might consider to be 'sinful'.
Again... the Bible explicitly says that everyone is a sinner.
And Jesus himself deliberately interacted with 'sinners'.
So if a person doesn't want to do business with 'sinners', then he will go broke since there is no one on the planet for him to do business with.

That seems reasonable to me.

For me, ground zero is when the state attempts to coerce a person into actively participating in an activity that is immoral to that person based on their religious beliefs.

I can't think of any situations where the state is doing that. Do you have examples?

[RickD]

DBowling wrote: ↑
For me, ground zero is when the state attempts to coerce a person into actively participating in an activity that is immoral to that person based on their religious beliefs.

EdwardMurphy wrote:
I can't think of any situations where the state is doing that. Do you have examples?

I guess you forgot about Jack Phillips, the Colorado cake baker.

[edwardmurphy]

I remember Jack Phillips. Last I heard he didn't think it was immoral to bake or sell cakes, and that's all he was told to do. He managed to argue that providing dessert for a wedding reception was somehow tantamount to participating in the ceremony. I find that argument asinine.

In any case, his asinine argument in support of using religion to justify bigotry found favor with the conservative Supreme Court Justices, so now Jack is free to deny service to homosexuals. So yay? Score one for intolerance?

Is that the best you've got?

[DBowling]

I remember Jack Phillips. Last I heard he didn't think it was immoral to bake or sell cakes, and that's all he was told to do. He managed to argue that providing dessert for a wedding reception was somehow tantamount to participating in the ceremony. I find that argument asinine.

In any case, his asinine argument in support of using religion to justify bigotry found favor with the conservative Supreme Court Justices, so now Jack is free to deny service to homosexuals. So yay? Score one for intolerance?

I think you need to check your facts again...
Jack Phillips had no problem selling cakes to homosexuals.

Jack Phillips refused to create a cake with a particular message that violated his religious beliefs.
And there are a number of messages that Jack refuses to put on his cakes... such as Halloween messages.

So I would say that the attacks on Jack Phillips for refusing to create a cake that violated his religious beliefs is a prime example of the kind of intolerance and coercion that some Christians find themselves facing.

Also the Supreme Court decision was 7 to 2, with liberal members of the court joining in with the majority.
So this wasn't even a close decision that was rammed through by those nasty Conservative judges.

This is exactly the kind of anti-Christian bias that I was referring to.

[RickD]

I remember Jack Phillips. Last I heard he didn't think it was immoral to bake or sell cakes, and that's all he was told to do. He managed to argue that providing dessert for a wedding reception was somehow tantamount to participating in the ceremony. I find that argument asinine.

In any case, his asinine argument in support of using religion to justify bigotry found favor with the conservative Supreme Court Justices, so now Jack is free to deny service to homosexuals. So yay? Score one for intolerance?

Is that the best you've got?

When DBowling writhe this:

For me, ground zero is when the state attempts to coerce a person into actively participating in an activity that is immoral to that person based on their religious beliefs.

You asked for an example, so I gave you one.

Making a cake for a gay wedding went against his conscience. The state tried to force him.

You can disagree with his reasoning, call it ridiculous, asinine, intolerant, whatever you want. The FACT is that the state tried to force a business owner to provide a service, against his conscience.

I'd be defending a Muslim cake baker that refused to bake a gay wedding cake. Or a Muslim cake baker that refused to bake a cake that said, "Jesus is Lord".

I'd defend an atheist cake baker who refused to bake a cake with a message about God.

I'd defend anyone's right to refuse to bake a cake, or provide a service that goes against their conscience.

And for the millionth time, if you read the story, you'd know he wasn't refusing service to homosexuals, simply because they are homosexual. He's said that he's sold other stuff to homosexuals.

The bottom line is that the state should not force someone to provide a service, if that service goes against their conscience. That's what the free market is for. Refuse to provide service enough times for reasons consumers disagree with, and consumers will stop buying.

[Philip]

Rick is absolutely correct! A person should be able to follow his conscience. You don't like it - go patronize another business. To echo Rick, I'd support people of every other background to make their own decisions as well. The state has zero business trying to legislate whatever it asserts to define as morality. That's a nasty, razorblade filled slope!

BTW, it's interesting that at the time the gay couple tried to get the cake, same-sex marriage was illegal in Colorado.

I really think that the real anger behind the cake case is that activists simple hate that many Christians think gay marriage is immoral. So they want them to be forced to recognize them as if their (the bakers') sense of morality is irrelevant. Ironic, is it not, that they also think the bakers' views are immoral. So it's only supposed to go one way???!!! Some people can be upset at something, but others don't have the right to have a different view? Please.

[edwardmurphy]

Hey Hortense, I know you're lurking from time to time. You're always asking why I post here. This is why. To challenge other people's views and have mine challenged in turn. I learn from exchanges like this one, and maybe I get other people thinking on occasion. If so that's a nice bonus.

Ok gentlemen, I confess that I had never looked as closely at that case as I probably should have, and I hadn't realized that I hadn't. I looked at it with fresh eyes this afternoon, and now I see things a bit differently.

Before I get into that, though, a questions for DBowling - you said that the case hinged on a message on the cake, but I haven't been able to find that message, or anything pertaining to any kind of message. From what I've read Phillips declined to do the cake for 2 stated reasons - 1) making a cake for a gay wedding (reception, actually) ran counter to his religious views, and 2) Colorado didn't recognize gay marriage (the marriage ceremony took place in Massachusetts) so the wedding was a sham making the reception a sham and a cake unnecessary.

If you can show me some statement that he was asked to write that runs counter to his beliefs then I'll agree that he was within his rights to refuse to write it. If there was no statement and he was simply refusing to make a cake then I maintain my view that making a cake in no way constitutes endorsement of or participation in the wedding (which was actually just a reception), and Phillips' refusal was a ridiculous snowflake moment.

The other thing I hadn't realized is how narrow the SCOTUS ruling was. They basically ruled that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission applied their rules inconsistently and were hostile to Phillips' (particular version of the) Christian faith. If the CCRC had done a better job of maintaining neutrality they'd likely have won the case. Kennedy, for one, said that the CCRC's apparent bias was the only reason that he decided in favor of Masterpiece.

The majority opinion stated that "although a baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, "might have his right to the free exercise of his religion limited by generally applicable laws", a State decision in an adjudication “in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself” is a factor violates the "State’s obligation of religious neutrality" under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution."

The decision also stated that "the outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market".

So all in all I feel better about the decision. It wasn't anything close to the game ending slam dunk described by the right wing punditry. Granted, the composition of the cort has changed, so the next time this issue comes up it will be, but I hope not. I'm encouraged by the statement that the owner of a business serving the public "might have his right to the free exercise of his religion limited by generally applicable laws." That ought to cover all kinds of discriminatory behavior. I was previously very concerned that this case would be used to justify things like refusing to cater an atheist wedding or declining to do floral arrangements for an interracial wedding. That doesn't seem to be the case.

[DBowling]

Before I get into that, though, a questions for DBowling - you said that the case hinged on a message on the cake, but I haven't been able to find that message, or anything pertaining to any kind of message. From what I've read Phillips declined to do the cake for 2 stated reasons - 1) making a cake for a gay wedding (reception, actually) ran counter to his religious views,

I was referring to the first stated reason you list above...
Creating a cake specifically for a gay wedding.

I believe Jack stated that he would have had no problem selling them a cake.
Jack's issue was creating a cake specifically for a gay wedding.

Using one of Jack's other examples
Jack refuses to create cakes for Halloween events.
As long as Jack is not asked to specifically create a cake for a Halloween event, I'm sure Jack would have no problem selling one of his cakes to someone who could then decide to take the cake to a Halloween party.

Jack has no problem selling cakes to gay couples or people who celebrate Halloween.
Jack is simply refusing to create cakes for specific activities that violate his religious views.
That is the 'messaging' I was referring to.

I fundamentally reject the premise that the state has any right to coerce Jack Phillips to create a cake specifically for an event that violates his religious beliefs. Whether that event is a gay wedding... or a Halloween party.

[Philip]

DB, I would have thought, on the abortion issue alone - at least as compared to Hillary - that a conservative Christian would have voted for Trump, as he was far more pro-life than Hillary, and he said he desired to appoint court nominees that are pro-life. How is that not worth voting for?

I did vote for a person who was pro-life by conviction.

Unlike those who voted for Trump, I voted for a person who actually understood and embraced the pro-life position.

But not in the election you didn't! And you had one candidate that clearly leaned against abortion - Trump! And that alone is why you should have voted form him, especially per the pro-life justices he'd repeatedly said he desired to appoint! This is why we should do the most good we can in our votes. Really, do you hate Trump so bad that you'd rather not vote for him as opposed to the good chance that he'd try, through his nominations and influence, try to greatly limit and impeded abortion on demand? Isn't that a little similar to the left - who mostly don't want Trump to succeed at anything positive, because they hate him getting accolades or propers for ANYTHING - even if he does something good!

By 2011 - way before he ran for president, Trump clearly leaned against abortion, had stated he was pro-life. He said he had radically changed his former pro-abortion stance. In a 2011 interview with David Brody of CBN News, Donald Trump said he changed his stance on abortion rights after speaking directly with people who considered an abortion. He explained, "One thing about me, I'm a very honorable guy. I'm pro-life, but I changed my view a number of years ago. One of the reasons I changed—one of the primary reasons—a friend of mine's wife was pregnant, in this case married. She was pregnant and he didn't really want the baby. And he was telling me the story. He was crying as he was telling me the story. He ends up having the baby and the baby is the apple of his eye. It's the greatest thing that's ever happened to him. And you know here's a baby that wasn't going to be let into life. And I heard this, and some other stories, and I am pro-life."

On December 1, 2015, Donald Trump said that as president he would defund Planned Parenthood and look at overturning Roe v. Wade. He said, “The other, you’re gonna need a lot of Supreme Court justices, but we’re gonna be looking at that very, very carefully, but you need a lot of Supreme Court judges. But defund yes, we’re going to be doing a lot of that.”

During a town hall meeting, March 30, 2016, Trump said, "“This issue is unclear and should be put back into the states for determination. Like Ronald Reagan, I am pro-life with exceptions, which I have outlined numerous times."

Trump said on April 21, 2016, that he would “absolutely” change the Republican Party platform opposing abortion to include exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother.

On September 19, 2016, Donald Trump announced that he had appointed Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of the Susan B. Anthony List, as the chair of his national “Pro-Life Coalition.” In a letter to anti-abortion leaders, Trump announced the appointment and outlined his views on abortion, which included “Nominating pro-life justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, signing into law the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act … defunding Planned Parenthood … making the Hyde Amendment permanent law.”

Now, even if Trump cynically was building his conservative base by turning pro-life, to me, that alone is enough to vote for him - given the solid pro-abortion and no limits views constantly stated by Hillary. Yeah, Trump is a mess, he's got huge issues - but we should see whatever good can be salvaged per our votes. And his abortion turn, morally, should have been enough to hold one's nose to vote - at least from a Christian perspective. No, there are no guarantees what any candidate might do. We have to make the best decision. And unless "Hitler and his evil twin are running against each other," usually, there is always one candidate that is better than the other.

[DBowling]

DB, I would have thought, on the abortion issue alone - at least as compared to Hillary - that a conservative Christian would have voted for Trump, as he was far more pro-life than Hillary, and he said he desired to appoint court nominees that are pro-life. How is that not worth voting for?

I did vote for a person who was pro-life by conviction.

DB: "Unlike those who voted for Trump, I voted for a person who actually understood and embraced the pro-life position."

But not in the election you didn't!

Oh yes I did!
I voted for Evan McMullin, a genuine Conservative who understood, embraced, and could accurately articulate the pro-life position.