On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 06:23:29 -0400, J Burns wrote:

On 8/1/15 7:04 PM, Ashton Crusher wrote:
Many on here say their desire to refuse
service to gays is because of their religious beliefs. Because of
their religious believes they say the first amendment gives them the
right to refuse to obey the LAW that prohibits discrimination against
gays. So the question that has been put to those people, and which
not a single one of the is willing to answer is this... If my (or
someone's) religious beliefs said it was a sin to pay taxes to the gvt
would our first amendment rights mean we don't have to pay taxes to
the gvt?

So I put the question to you... If my (or
someone's) religious beliefs said it was a sin to pay taxes to the gvt
would our first amendment rights mean we don't have to pay taxes to
the gvt?

The First Amendment seems to be about the practice of organized
religions. It upheld a Seventh Day Adventist who refused to work
Saturdays, but I don't think anyone with a personal belief against
coming in on Mondays ever had a leg to stand on.


Great. So what's the answer to the question.... if the prophets of
some current church have a revelation that it's a sin to pay taxes to
gvt and if they teach that for a couple decades can the members of the
church, lets say in two decades, stop paying their taxes because the
SIN of paying them has become too much for them to bear any longer?
This would, after 20 years, have become a deeply held religious belief
for those folks, it would pass the test teh SC has outlined. So
should they be excused from taxes as the current "good" Christians
wish to be excused from the laws prohibiting discrimination against
gays by businesses because their hate for gays is based on a deeply
held religious belief.

When a clergyman pronounces a couple married, it's not valid unless he
has credentials from a recognized religious organization. A council of
recognized religions tells governments what organizations are qualified.
Does that violate the First Amendment?


I don't know where you get that from. I know of no such thing. I can
tell you that in AZ it's completely wrong. The AZ law is short and
simple. And it even allows that a Marriage IS valid even if the
"clergy" isn't clergy but whoever it is mistakenly thinks they are
allowed to perform marriages. So a skipper of a canoe can perform a
marriage in the middle of the fishing pond if they mistakenly think
being the "skipper" confers on them the authority to do so. Note the
full thrust of 2. below.


AZ revised statue 25-111
A. A marriage shall not be contracted by agreement without a marriage
ceremony.
B. A marriage contracted within this state is not valid unless all of
the following occur:
1. A license is issued as provided in this title.
2. The marriage is solemnized by a person authorized by law to
solemnize marriages or by a person purporting to act in such capacity
and believed in good faith by at least one of the parties to be so
authorized.
3. The marriage is solemnized before the expiration of the marriage
license.