Disqus - Friends of jimmccrea

Re: Christian Photographer Who Refused Gay Wedding Gig Pays 'Price of Citizenship'

russell conrad lewis — Tue, 08 Apr 2014 04:12:10 -0000

Well, it looks like dragging this case to the Supreme Court backfired for the photographer. She has been slapped down hard and will now have to abide by the rules of rules of the state, the same as any other business owner.

Re: Supreme Court declines to hear religious freedom photography case :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)

russell conrad lewis — Tue, 08 Apr 2014 12:35:21 -0000

Here we go, soon the cries of "activist" will be attached to the justices because they didn't rule in favor of the religious folks. In fact they didn't rule at all, so the mantle of "activist" will most likely fall to the lower courts. There will be cries of unfairness, despite the fact that a ruling in the couple's favor would have praised the courts.
The legal system of our country was utilized and decisions rendered. And just like in life, dear couple, things don't always work out in your favor.

Re: Supreme Court declines to hear religious freedom photography case :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)

russell conrad lewis — Wed, 09 Apr 2014 03:04:37 -0000

Of course there is religious freedom. Just not the freedom to impose your own religious beliefs on others or circumvent laws on the books and cry foul and invoke religious freedom. One (or many) can not use the banner of Christ or any other deity to justify any and all actions.

Re: Supreme Court declines to hear religious freedom photography case :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)

russell conrad lewis — Wed, 09 Apr 2014 03:09:56 -0000

It seems as if 2 courts disagree with you and more than likely a third being the supreme court which declined to hear the case.
At least your statement says, yes, she did discriminate, you do at least acknowledge that. However, like it or not (both you and she) discrimination does apply and was held to apply by an additional court.
Once again, the law is clear for a business owner, you may not approve or "what they were engaged in" but when you have a license issued by the state, you are required to abide by the laws of the state.

Re: Court upholds NYC ban on religious services in public schools :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)

russell conrad lewis — Wed, 09 Apr 2014 03:15:34 -0000

Sorry, you can't have it both ways. A school is for learning, a church, well, learning of a different type.
I say let a Planned Parenthood or Gay rights group try to commandeer a church for a meeting or social event and see how high up to the heavens the cry of outrage would be.

Re: Study indicates wide rejection of new translations by US clergy

russell conrad lewis — Wed, 09 Apr 2014 03:27:15 -0000

I've been in some very heated discussions on NCR and yet, as I recall, a while ago one of the few things we all agreed on was the horrific translation thrust upon us by those men who won't release other survey results (wink, wink). There was, apparently, no significant input from non clerics and non "scholars." I wonder when the magisterium is going to include the laity in this type of decision making, instead of looking surprised and shocked when lay folks don't fall into line and just read, repeat, regurgitate what is fed to the masses.
The days of the "unwashed masses," uneducated congregants needing guiding and prodding and direction to ensure the salvation of their souls are long gone.
The bishops are shepherds are "leading" unruly flocks which are no longer so docile.
Some of the flock is starting to wander away and with the flock, so goes the golden fleece.

Re: Supreme Court declines to hear religious freedom photography case :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)

russell conrad lewis — Thu, 10 Apr 2014 02:56:26 -0000

Gay people are not a business.

Re: Court upholds NYC ban on religious services in public schools :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)

russell conrad lewis — Thu, 10 Apr 2014 02:58:18 -0000

When you start your comment with an insult... your credibility and my desire to have a civil conversation with you are gone... "Dr."

Re: Supreme Court declines to hear religious freedom photography case :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)

russell conrad lewis — Thu, 10 Apr 2014 03:06:44 -0000

There has not been a denial of any religious freedom. And just because the court won't rule at all doesn't give reason to call that decision denial of religious freedom because they wouldn't rule in your favor.
You are absolutely right, the voters did pass Prop 8. It is also the right of the people to appeal that vote to the judicial side of the government. Just because you don't like the decision doesn't mean the legal system "circumvented" anything. Appeal to the judicial system IS the "normal manner of lawmaking."
No one's career has been wrecked or intimidated by the decision of Prop 8 by judges and justices. And it seems as if the persons who were ruled against were perfectly happy to use the justice system in the hopes the ruling would work in their favor and then they and you cry foul when it doesn't. Embracing the judicial system when it works for you and vilifying it when it doesn't shows a total lack of respect for the system of government we have.

Re: Supreme Court declines to hear religious freedom photography case :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)

russell conrad lewis — Thu, 10 Apr 2014 03:09:33 -0000

Forced to work without choice or compensation is a better definition of the word "slavery."

Re: Supreme Court declines to hear religious freedom photography case :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)

russell conrad lewis — Thu, 10 Apr 2014 03:12:53 -0000

I don't understand what that question means any more than what point you were trying to make earlier in this thread.

Re: Study indicates wide rejection of new translations by US clergy

russell conrad lewis — Thu, 10 Apr 2014 03:18:42 -0000

"Sampling," riiiiiight.
Yet, somehow, when it comes to asking for money, they somehow manage to reach all of us. Funny how that works

Re: Transgender student denied on-campus male housing at Christian university

russell conrad lewis — Thu, 10 Apr 2014 03:28:29 -0000

It would seem that the only "One" who is wondering about anything is you.
And why would or should any person who has had this surgery "keep his or her head down?" There is no shame or embarrassment in making one's self whole.
Sounds like it is you or someone like you who wants or expects a person to be ashamed of who they are... before or after surgery.
Think about it.

Re: Supreme Court declines to hear religious freedom photography case :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)

russell conrad lewis — Fri, 11 Apr 2014 00:46:35 -0000

There is a difference between changing the law and circumventing the law. I suspect you either don't understand or don't want to see the difference. It is the right of a citizen to try and change a law they think is unjust. Trying to circumvent the law by throwing a smokescreen up after the fact as the people who are crying religious freedom is totally different.
Changing laws, the legal way is the way people gain freedoms and rights they otherwise wouldn't have, Amendment 13, 14, 15 and 19 at the very least show that the law can and should have been changed or a benefit from rule of law should be established. If the Constitution were a document that is only to be "conformed to" then there wouldn't be a mechanism to amend it.
Now, with all that being said, it appears you are one of those people who has to place quotation marks around the word marriage, like it is a dirty thing and we shouldn't be discussing it. We could go back and forth forever to no avail. I for one am going to drop the discussion with you while it's civil. I'm sure you will have one more barb to hurl so you can have the last word... knock yourself out, I'm done. Change is coming and the sooner the better.

Re: Supreme Court declines to hear religious freedom photography case :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)

russell conrad lewis — Fri, 11 Apr 2014 00:56:26 -0000

So untrue. They are still free to be true to their convictions and be as narrow minded as they wish, and feel and think that couple and all couples are the spawn of Satan. What they can not do is bring that into their business and choose to discriminate in a secular way in violation of the business license they hold.

Re: Supreme Court declines to hear religious freedom photography case :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)

russell conrad lewis — Fri, 11 Apr 2014 22:24:07 -0000

And what does that have to do with the whole conversation?

Re: Supreme Court declines to hear religious freedom photography case :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)

russell conrad lewis — Fri, 11 Apr 2014 22:28:54 -0000

That example is not the same as this case. They didn't refuse to come out because you are gay.
And probably, yes, if she had just said the words "I don't want your business" she might not be in hot water. As soon as she applied that decision to a protected class of people under the law, she violated that law.

Re: Supreme Court declines to hear religious freedom photography case :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)

russell conrad lewis — Mon, 14 Apr 2014 13:15:00 -0000

Wrong comparison. You wouldn't be forced to serve people who curse or are dirty because they are not a protected class of people. Under the terms of having a business license, discrimination, in this case, because of sexual orientation is illegal. So, I guess to answer your statement, no, you can't refuse service to people who are protected no matter how offensive you think they are. That is not slavery, again check the application of that word. But the business owner knew or should have known the rules of the state in which she applied for a license. The state does not have a religious interest in the business or the person, other than to ensure that religion does not interfere with the law and the equal treatment of its citizens.

Re: Android 4.4.2 KitKat rolling out for Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 (2014)

russell conrad lewis — Thu, 17 Apr 2014 21:46:27 -0000

I've had my Note 3 longer than the tablet... when the heck is the phone going to be updated? AKKKKKK.

Re: Botched execution shows death penalty's brutality, bishop says :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)

russell conrad lewis — Thu, 01 May 2014 02:33:44 -0000

No, brutality is raping and burying a person alive and leaving them to die.

Re: Google called on to be neutral in pregnancy center ad policy :: Catholic News Agency (CNA)

russell conrad lewis — Thu, 01 May 2014 02:42:33 -0000

Catholics are notoriously fascinated by and passionate about the first controversial shiny object that comes along. And as easily distracted by the next.
Catholics are also just like everyone else... justifiably horrified by certain actions, people, companies and the like... yet, the minute their lives are inconvenienced by the loss of one of those companies (think Google or The Home Depot) it's back to the status quo. I would wager all the people who were outraged because the boss of Mozilla who quit (wasn't fired) and swore they were NEVER going to use Firefox ever again, never made it to another browser. So uniting and standing up may be in the Catholic nature, but only if it is short term.

Re: Woman causes spinal injury to bicyclist while texting… says she doesn’t care

russell conrad lewis — Mon, 05 May 2014 12:25:21 -0000

I think her running into a pole, being thrown through the windshield and being left horribly disfigured might change her mind. That pretty blonde hair and the golden triangle below won't get her a man to buy her pretty stuff and pay her bills when the face looks like Quasimodo.

Re: Head of Vatican doctrinal congregation confronts LCWR for noncooperation

russell conrad lewis — Mon, 05 May 2014 13:40:11 -0000

Tell that to Galileo with his silly notions of the Earth moving around the sun that the Vicars of Christ squashed. And a thousand other things the VoC has "protected" us from.

Re: Head of Vatican doctrinal congregation confronts LCWR for noncooperation

russell conrad lewis — Mon, 05 May 2014 13:41:46 -0000

Middle Man would probably be happy for the "good sisters" to move back to the middle ages.

Re: Head of Vatican doctrinal congregation confronts LCWR for noncooperation

russell conrad lewis — Mon, 05 May 2014 14:09:57 -0000

Seeing as it took until 1992 for the Church to finally, in an off handed way, apologize about the error it had made, the point is still valid.
Besides, if you and others like you can used teachings and documents and thought processes which are more that 500 years old, I can use an example just as old. What your statement, dripping with sarcasm no doubt, translates to is, it's a factual statement and you don't have an honest argument to try and negate the truth of the statement.