T Nation

The Supreme Court Fight is On. The Divide Worsens


It doesn’t stand to reason that at all. What animals have a Bill of Rights?


He is objecting based on intelligence.


That series was so not worth the time it took to watch.


Us. We do.


@zecarlo…my initial response is probably like a lot of things…yes.

I would also say, though, that hate and bigotry; independent of how hard we may try to hide it; will eventually come out in some form.

In other words; what’s in our heart will eventually cut through the facade and give us away…




Unfathomabley untrue, ask stalin.


Thats like saying ‘it’s not a mouse trap, it’s a trap that catches mice’.

Still not the point. Can you stay on topic?


I hate weddings. I avoid them at all costs.


So human’s are not animals not natural?


Atheism is not a religion.

Yeah that’s why I said

I don’t actually understand what your point is. If your point is anyone can discriminate, then no shit sherlock? If your point is atheists can discriminate on grounds of being an atheist, I’d ask you what atheism preaches that these people are following.


Yes, I plainly stated that I was simply saying that bigotry in many forms and provided some hypothetical accounts.


Cool point? The ‘hypothetical’ act of an atheist discriminating against someone and claiming the same grounds as a religious person still can’t happen.

This isn’t a thing. That’s really all my point was. You just kept insisting it was


Being anti-religious is a thing and being an anti -religious atheist is also a thing. As is being anti-religious because one is an atheist.


Which still isn’t a religion

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

The SCOTUS ruling very clearly stated that the man’s RELIGIOUS grounds were vital for this case. And as I’ve said before, I don’t personally have a problem with it, I prefer the market sort out bigots. But it doesn’t magically allow atheists (or ‘anti religious’ people) to claim religious grounds when they’re not practicing a religion.


Where did I say it was?


Say it was a religion? I didn’t say you did.

Say it could be used to discriminate? In your ‘Jesus is Lord’ cake example. Which isn’t accurate


Move goal posts, much?
And yes an atheist could absolutely be an anti-religious bigot and refuse to decorate a cake with the quote ‘Jesus is Lord’.


Sure he could. He just can’t claim religious grounds while doing it. He doesn’t have a religion justifying his actions that the court would have to respect (like the recent SCOTUS decision).


I don’t know. Seems like the free exercises of includes the decision to not exercise any. Then there’s free speech and association.