Friday, May 19, 2006

If You Want to Live in a Christian Paradise...

Go here.

Reading things like that make me proud to be an American. How can we possibly tell other countries in the world, places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, how to live when we ourselves are so overrun by sin and filth? These countries don't look to us as their moral compass precisely because we do not punish those who lack the morals to be good members of society. And couples who cohabitate without being married are immoral and a black eye on society. Forget fining them or even evicting them, for there are other God-less towns in America in which they can live; instead, they should at least be forced to live in some sort of sinners' shantytown. I mention said shantytown because I've been watching that HBO show, Big Love (in preparation for my Church's War on Polygamy), and the polygamist cult lives in such a town, and it seems perfect for people who live in sin. We could also force the couple to marry, or we could rip them apart and marry the woman off to a church elder while sending the man off to a re-education camp. These, of course, are just ideas; I'm sure there are people much more creative than I that can come up with even better ideas with which to bring Heaven on Earth and punish those that pollute our society with their moral relativism, those that flaunt their disbelief in the Bible and Satanic thoughts by living in sin right next to our churches, our children.

21 Comments:

Anonymous Ryven said...

Unconstitutional. This will never hold up in Supreme Court.

4:24 PM  
Anonymous Led Head said...

*rolls eyes* That law was probably one that has been around since the stone ages that nobody took off the books.

I don't think it will hold up either, Ryven. It may have 50 years ago, but not now.

10:12 PM  
Anonymous Ryven said...

The fact that it's still enforced is neither here nor there. It's a law that realtors and whatnot cannot discriminate based on race, creed, or marital status.

10:57 PM  
Blogger Nathaniel said...

ryven, led-head -- i'm going to have to disagree with you about the constitutionality of the law. first, it is a state action and has nothing to do with realtors discriminating against anybody. This will be examined under the 14th amendment, and the case law for this kind of thing is highly in favor of state law. there is no racial discrimination or religious or sexual discrimination, so as long as the state has any reasonable purpose to pass such a law, it will be upheld. also, because of sinners such as yourself, it will be argued that this is primarily a religious law, thus entangling the state with religion and violating the Establishment Clause. however, case law in this regard also favors the state, and as long as the state can show the law has a secular purpose, does not advance a PARTICULAR religion, nor administratively entangle the state with a religion, it will pass. basically, the law is one about morality and mentions nothing about Christianity or any other type of religion. you may argue that it is discriminating against people, but for that argument to hold water, the people have to be a protected class. thus far, the supreme court has found only minorities, women, and foreign born citizens to be protected.

11:23 PM  
Anonymous Ryven said...

It discriminates against people based on marital status, which is still discrimination. There is no practical application to this law. I can see it being done with pedophiles, or convicted rapists, murderers, violently psychotic people and so forth, but there's no justification with this except that some people don't agree with how others are living. That argument won't hold up in Supreme court, if they decide it should go that far. Of course, if I were them, I would just move to another town that wasnt' populated by a bunch of pompous, self righteous jerks who have nothing better to do than to judge their neighbors.

11:54 PM  
Anonymous Ryven said...

Hence this: http://www.hud.gov/offices/fheo/FHLaws/

-Hard to argue with the Civil Rights Acts. The Supreme Court could pretty much shut the mayor of Black Jack down just with this.

http://www.fairhousinglaw.org/

http://consumerlawpage.com/brochure/fair-hse.shtml

12:00 AM  
Blogger Nathaniel said...

ryven -- again, you're applying federal laws that are applicable to landlords, not local government ordinances. being quite familiar with the Supreme Court rulings regarding discrimination and religion, nothing in their rulings to date would make this law unconstitutional unless there is legislative history regarding the law that proves it was enacted for a religious purpose. admitedly, i don't know the entire history of the law at issue, but it seems as though it's going to be applied equally, regardless of the religion or lack thereof of the people who are fined/evicted. and local and state governments enact laws all the time that deal with morality. the age of statutory rape or the legal age people can get married, for example. or laws that prevent people from smoking marijuana for pain. such laws in the eyes of some are arbitrary, yet they are consistently upheld (thankfully).

1:06 AM  
Anonymous Ryven said...

Religion doesn't enter into it at this point. If it's found out that the rulings are religious, then that bridge will be crossed if and when they get there. And they'll probably win. The state of Missouri states that you cannot be held accountable for indescresions against a church of which you aren't a part of. This includes a "marriage prerequisite", which if religious, violates the seperation of Church and State, which is clearly defined in the Bill of Rights.

The fact that a family is being discriminated against because of marital bias is what's at hand.

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:AFv_nwb68X8J:www.sos.missouri.gov/adrules/csr/current/8csr/8c60-4.pdf+Missouri+residents+occupancy+rights+permits+&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

Missouri Commission on Human Rights Chapter 4: Guidelines and Interpretations of Fair Housing Sections of the Missouri Human Rights Act.

"(2) Conduct made unlawful under this rule includes, but is not limited to, coercing a per-son, either orally, in writing, or by othermeans, to deny or limit the benefits provided in connection with the sale or rental of a dwelling or in connection with a residential real estate-related transaction because ofrace, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, ancestry or national origin."

Whether or not this helps, I can't be sure. But they can always appeal that the law infringes upon their federal rights to privacy to have the rulings overturned, which have worked in other states, such as New York.

3:45 AM  
Anonymous Led Head said...

I see what you mean, Ryven. I don't see how it can hold up either.

Sorry Nathaniel.

Actually, I'm not.

9:24 PM  
Anonymous Ryven said...

Also a boon for the family is getting the ACLU involved.

10:06 PM  
Anonymous Matthew said...

Discrimination, plain and simple.

Having a piece of paper that says you're married doesn't make it any more wholesome and pure than having a birth certificate makes you any more alive.

8:27 PM  
Blogger Nathaniel said...

ryven -- okay, i'm only going to say this one more time: that law, like the federal laws you stated, apply only to landlords, rental agents, etc. local gov. are still free to make constitutionally valid laws that "discriminate" as long as the people being discriminated against are not racial minorities or women. and i've already summarized Supreme Court case law.

9:37 PM  
Anonymous Ryven said...

The Missouri State Constitution isn't federal law, it's state law. Hence the Missouri and not the Civil Rights part. In that paragraph it states that no one can deny or obstruct someone from gaining access to housing, or anything leading upto that housing, IE a permit, based on color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status, ancestry or national origin.

I'm not sure where you're getting this "women or minorities" thing, but there are several other groups that are protected under laws, state or otherwise.

2:10 AM  
Anonymous jdparnell said...

This is Dr. JD Parnell,
I realize that I haven't been writing alot lately, but I've been away on travel, learning how to be less accepting and more condemning. Now, I believe that our ideal society should be one in which we have a surveillance camera in every bedroom. Many of you may resent that. Well Tough!!! I don't care what you resent! Therefore, I propose hat these surveillance cameras be fed directly into a central monitoring station manned by church elders that will monitor your behavior. And if your behavior doesn't meet our standards of morality then shantytowns will be just the beginning! Those of you who do not change your ways from being banished to the shantytowns will then be forced to be stripped to the waist and tied to a horse-drawn cart and led through the town, where onlookers observe your behavior, and judge you in the community public square, while you walk through town tied to the cart. And if that doesn't change your ways, then you shall be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail!!! Praise Be to the Lamb of God!!!

10:13 PM  
Anonymous Ryven said...

See, and that's just the problem. You don't care about others. You just care about your ideas, and "to hell" with those it hurts.

You, sir, are a monster.

1:22 AM  
Blogger Wrin said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

1:55 PM  
Blogger Wrin said...

I'll leave the good crazy doctor out of it because as much as it pains me to say so Nathaniel is more reasonable.

Quote:
Sec. 816. [42 U.S.C. 3615] Effect on State laws
Nothing in this subchapter shall be constructed to invalidate or limit any law of a State or political subdivision of a State, or of any other jurisdiction in which this subchapter shall be effective, that grants, guarantees, or protects the same rights as are granted by this subchapter; but any law of a State, a political subdivision, or other such jurisdiction that purports to require or permit any action that would be a discriminatory housing practice under this subchapter shall to that extent be invalid.

1:56 PM  
Blogger Nathaniel said...

wrin -- well, assuming you aren't doing the work of the devil and inventing statutes out of thin air, i'll concede the argument with regards to the applicability of Federal discrimination on state and local laws. but now i'll bring up a new wrinkle: the US anti-discrimination laws' reach is limited by the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. that's how the federal government is able to regulate the environment, minimum wage laws, the stock exchange, etc. anyway, this means that for them to trump a state law, the law must affect commerce outside of the state. admitedly, in years past, as the power of activist judges was at its pinnacle, the Supreme Court found pretty much any state action to affect commerce. however, in recent years, the Supreme Court has limited its holdings in this regard. for example, the gov. tried to regulate guns around schools using the commerce clause, arguing that gun crimes indirectly affected the national economy because gun injuries took people out of the work force. however, the Supreme Court rejected this argument. and i would say applying federal discrimination laws to a local housing ordanince that doesn't discriminate based on race or sex (if they did, then the ordinances would be unconst.) and doesn't involve an exchange of money that affects commerce between states is an unconstitutional application of the law. further, no one has yet to come up with a sound legal argument as to why "discrimination" based on marriage is unconstitutional. we discriminate against criminals all the time, just as we write laws making it illegal to do things that offend our values all the time. like public nudity for example. like outlawing the use of drugs, for example. like outlawing polygamy, for example.

4:27 PM  
Anonymous Led Head said...

"Now, I believe that our ideal society should be one in which we have a surveillance camera in every bedroom...I propose hat these surveillance cameras be fed directly into a central monitoring station manned by church elders that will monitor your behavior."

Parnell, if you're that hard up, why don't you just go down to the XXX store and rent some dirty videos. I promise I won't tell.

9:52 PM  
Anonymous Led Head said...

P.S. While you're at it, why don't you invite Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, and Bob Larson over to watch them with you.

9:53 PM  
Anonymous Ryven said...

Polygamy is outlawed federally. And as far as I know, as long as it's religious, it's still legal. It's just that Joe Blow off the street isn't allowed to have 30 wives for the sake of having 30 wives. He obviously can't provide for them all, ect ect.

Outlawing drugs... it's pretty obvious why drugs are outlawed. Let's take Meth for example. Causes temporary insanity, the means to make the drug are highly volitile and causes house fires constantly. There are plenty of good reasons to outlaw drugs.

Public nudity. That's general morality. No one wants to see others naked. It's a distraction, first of all. And second of all, they have colonies where they're allowed to be nudists, so it's all gravy.

But discrimination against marital status? Well, just googling it I can't find anything on it, except for the Fair Housing site which offers assistance (Read: Advocates. Lawyers.) for those who have been discriminated against. However, I'm fairly certain that after this case in Missouri, laws are going to change. Because it's friggin' ridiculous a couple can be turned away because they're not married. That bleeds of religious bias.

Hm. Religious bias.

I wonder if it'd be possible for the couple with the children to argue that they're being discriminated against based on their creed, IE they don't beleive marriage is necessary, and it's discrimination that the city officials are turning them away based on their perceptions of "family" and marriage. Of course, this argument would swing on the detail that the whole fiasco is about religious bias, which the articles have been vague about, but we'll see.

1:37 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home