Since gay marriage, i dont see seperation of church and state

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Why only LGBT too? Begin gay or straight are behaviors so should we also list all behaviors too?

Being gay or straight is not a behavior. It's a sexual orientation.

Can a gay person discriminate against a straight person and not rent them a place?

Yes. And adding "sexual orientation" to the list would prevent that.

I'm not saying any of this is right but people discriminate all the time, everyday.

In discussions like these, the word "discrimination" is assumed to be the LEGAL meaning (to make an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age), not the common meaning of "to differentiate".

originally posted by: jimmyx
your description of a "Handful" may be right....to me, I think there is more silence, than voiced opinion. ruling by religious faith, has resulted in millions of deaths in human history, and it's far from being over for the religious fanatics.

You saying humans would be better off without religion?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Annee

There are continuous lawsuits by proponents of Separation of Church and State to remove it. Which I believe will happen some day.

That would be quite difficult considering there are three major Supreme Court decisions that establish precedent that the words are more ceremonial in nature and in no way establish a religion.

I've been watching this battle of Christian dominance losing its foothold on government since the late 50s.

It's slow going, but Separation of Church and State is winning.

Dp

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

Yes. And adding "sexual orientation" to the list would prevent that.

Yes agree, but "sexual orientation" was not used, but LGBT was, so I wanted to understand why LGBT should be added.

originally posted by: Annee

I've been watching this battle of Christian dominance losing its foothold on government since the late 50s.

It's slow going, but Separation of Church and State is winning.

The Supreme Court ruled that the word 'God' in non-denominational in two cases and in a third ruled that our founding documents and institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. It would have to be a rather innovative legal challenge for them to even hear the case.

Then only other route is for Congress to authorize a change but I do not see that happening either.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
You saying humans would be better off without religion?

Human's having religion isn't the problem. Spewing one's religion all over other people and infiltrating the government with religious zealots, in order to control the people is the problem.

So, no. Humans wouldn't be better off without religion, but all of us would be better off if people practiced THEIR religion and left everyone else alone. The ONLY problem I have with religion is the people who use it to control others.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Yes agree, but "sexual orientation" was not used, but LGBT was, so I wanted to understand why LGBT should be added.

Sexual orientation IS LGB... The T (or GID) should added as well.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Annee

I've been watching this battle of Christian dominance losing its foothold on government since the late 50s.

It's slow going, but Separation of Church and State is winning.

The Supreme Court ruled that the word 'God' in non-denominational in two cases and in a third ruled that our founding documents and institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. It would have to be a rather innovative legal challenge for them to even hear the case.

Then only other route if for Congress to authorize a change but I do not see that happening either.

I know what they ruled. I follow this. They will be challenged again.

No legal government document should celebrate any God. It is flat out wrong for it to be on our currency.

originally posted by: Annee

I know what they ruled. I follow this. They will be challenged again.

Doubtful unless you have a strategy you want to share that some future attorney may want to use.

No legal government document should celebrate any God. It is flat out wrong for it to be on our currency.

But that is the point, it is considered 'ceremonial deism' and does not celebrate anything.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
The ONLY problem I have with religion is the people who use it to control others.

Agree, religion used as a political tool for control is wrong, but much of our moral foundation comes from religion and when we look at the human race during those times that religion was not a part of that moral foundation we have seen the very worst that humans can do.

The political aspect of religion has very little to do with any kind of faith as a part of it. This is why I do not see a problem with religion in Government if it is at the faith level and not controlling level, so though I'm not religious to see "In God We Trust" as example, I see it as a faith statement and not one to control.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

Sexual orientation IS LGB... The T (or GID) should added as well.

So everyone on this planet falls under LGBT?

originally posted by: Xtrozero
So everyone on this planet falls under LGBT?

OMG! What are you arguing about? When I wrote "LGBT" it was shorthand for "sexual orientation and gender dysphoria". I didn't mean add the phrase "LGBT". It seems you just want to argue about something...

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

Sexual orientation IS LGB... The T (or GID) should added as well.

So everyone on this planet falls under LGBT?

This is a silly argument. Yes, the discussion is Equal Rights/Treatment of LGBT. Because that's currently what's happening.

Does that mean that's how the government will list it when they add it to the non-discrimination list? Of course not.

Just like Gay Marriage is not Gay Marriage ---- it's Marriage Equality.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: jimmyx
those were done by religious zealots in government, who chose not to honor the intent of the first amendment.

No, they were done by an overwhelming vote in Congress both times so I doubt it was just 'religious zealots'.

"in god we trust" establishes a godly religious belief, this belief is printed on all our money. it does not say "in freedom we trust"...or "in equality we trust"...using the word "god" IS religious, how else would you define it????...which is kind of ironic in 2 ways. 1...is in the very act of using it on all our money, as it pertains to the twisted illogical ambivalence regarding the "freedom of religion" in our first amendment. and 2...is for Jesus himself who directed his (only) anger toward the "money changers" (bankers) of his time. it seems rather hypocritical for religious Americans to allow the use of that phrase on our money.

originally posted by: jimmyx

"in god we trust" establishes a godly religious belief...

The maybe you should hire an attorney and take your sentiments to the Supreme Court who will most likely dismiss the case outright like the last person who challenged the motto.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Annee

I know what they ruled. I follow this. They will be challenged again.

Doubtful unless you have a strategy you want to share that some future attorney may want to use.

No legal government document should celebrate any God. It is flat out wrong for it to be on our currency.

But that is the point, it is considered 'ceremonial deism' and does not celebrate anything.

Government needs to be for ALL citizens, not exclusive for God believers. Atheists do not recognize or want a 'Ceremonial' God or any God on a legal government document.

Even 'Ceremonial Deism' creates separation.

a reply to: Jordan River

I don't see that the church plays any role in the supreme court decision regarding same sex marriage.

all those people could just as easily be married at the County Court House presided over by a Judge.

the church is irrelevant in Government business as it should be.

but, i'm certain of one thing...the church shills are going to continue their attempts to interject their church institutions into US Government business....as is the their point always.

originally posted by: Annee
Government needs to be for ALL citizens, not exclusive for God believers. Atheists do not recognize or want a 'Ceremonial' God or any God on a legal government document.

Even 'Ceremonial Deism' creates separation.

Frankly they need to get used to it since, as I said earlier, unless you have some novel strategy that the last few challengers tried the legal precedent is it does not violate the Establishment Clause. The last decision was 8-0 with only Scalia not participating in the decision.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The Supreme Court refused to hear several "gay marriage" cases before it decided to take it on and rule on it... Just because they have refused to hear something in the past, doesn't mean they're always going to do that. One day they WILL hear a case and rule on it.