60 Percent Of Americans Soon Will Live In States With Marriage Equality

[Skylar]

People who don't want to make a cake for gay couples are forced to, their liberty is denied.

Actually, businesses who choose to discriminate against gays are fined. If they're willing to pay those fines, they can discriminate against anyone for any reason. The choice is always theirs.

The constant comparison of the gay movement to the black experience and the civil rights movement is as farcical as it is bogus, and black people will tell you that. It is another pr move to create the illusion of centuries of persecution and suffering on an epic scale. Scratch the comparison.

You're aware that homosexuals were *executed* for sodomy during the era of the founders, right? That Jefferson in an attempt to liberalize the laws of Virginia tried to change the laws so they were only castrated (without anesthesia of course) rather than killed. With homosexuals put into mental institutions, beaten or mutilated for most of our nation's history. Sodomy was a criminal act in 14 States until 2004. And all for an act that harmed no one That interfered with the rights of no one.

That's more than ample justification for protection. The fact that they are people and their rights should be protected. There's no legally valid reason to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry. The denial serves no state interest. It has no rational reason than to continue to persecute gays and lesbians, treating them as less. Their rights are just as worth protecting as anyone else's.

As Mr. Swingvoter himself made clear in Romer V. Evans.....when he protected gays and lesbians against pointlessly discriminatory laws.

he graph of public sentiment on gay marriage only goes to prove my point about the overwhelming liberal bias in education at all levels.

A systematic liberal bias.....they just happened to manifest in 2011. But not 2010. Or 2009. Or in 1989. Odd that. Why would that educational bias manifest so distinctly across the country in the same year? And even among republicans, with a sharp shift increase in the support for gay marriage at the exact same time?

You're offering a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy. And its backed with nothing more than your ability to type it.

There is a steady drumbeat of anti Christian propaganda that parallels the efforts to remove every vestige of Christian faith and history from public halls of education.

And why would we want Christian faith.....or Jewish faith, or Islamic faith or Hindii faith as the basis of our education system? Why would the government *want* to promote a particular religion. Let alone have the constitutional authority to do so?

But while our founders struggled with slavery they never even had a passing thought for gay marriage and while Jefferson would absolutely want all citizens to be treated fairly he would consider the marriage of a man and woman to be the premier union of the land and a necessary component to a stable and moral country.

Who cares what Jefferson would have wanted? I've checked the constitution and the Federalist Papers. Jefferson's agreement is never mentioned as the basis of any right. The founders had no problem treating humans as 3/5ths of people, stripping people of their rights and turning them into property, castrating and killing gays, preventing women from voting, failing to apply the Bill of Rights to the States, or denying suffrage to anyone without property.

This fawning, obsequious, lick spittle reverence for mere people is irrational. The founders weren't deities. They were thoroughly fallible men who made a government of compromise that was deeply, deeply flawed. As it was based on fundamental inequities that could not be resolved at the time of the nation's founding. Its taken us hundreds of thousands of lives, years of wars, multiple amendments and more than 2 centuries. But we've vastly improved our nation and our system of laws. And extended liberty and freedoms that the founders never could.

 

[Noomi]

The total population of those states, based on 2013 estimates from the Census Bureau, is about 190 million. Just over 60 percent of the U.S. population now lives in a state where marriage equality soon will be legal.

And with Millennials coming into the mjority they stand out for voting heavily Democratic and for liberal views on many political and social issues, ranging from a belief in an activist government to support for same-sex marriage and marijuana legalization.

These findings are based on a new Pew Research Center survey conducted
Feb. 14-23, 2014 among 1,821 adults nationwide, including 617 Millennial adults, and analysis of other Pew Research Center surveys conducted between 1990 and 2014.

Millennials in Adulthood Pew Research Center s Social Demographic Trends Project

That is absolutely freaking awesome.

 

[frigidweirdo]

This is unsurprisingly ignorant.

That private organizations aren't subject to 14th Amendment jurisprudence is fundamental Constitutional doctrine.

Government has never had the authority to compel religious organizations to perform a marriage ceremony for a same-sex couple; this is not and has never been part of the issue.

Consequently there is no 'start,' 'good' or otherwise.

To be fair, we weren't talking 14th Amendment per se, but talking about what liberty is.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Frig your argument does not recognize reality. People who don't want to make a cake for gay couples are forced to, their liberty is denied. Ordained ministers who have a religious constraint about marrying gays are forced to do,so, their liberty is denied. A mayor in Houston who wants to jam her gay agenda down citizens throats uses taxpayer money and city attorneys to harass ministers that oppose her agenda going so blatantly far as to subpoena their sermons, their liberties are not only denied but others who would oppose her are put on notice that the power of the state will be used against them if they dare to resist. The examples are legion. For the lgbt community when it comes to promoting their agenda, liberty is only what they say it is.

The constant comparison of the gay movement to the black experience and the civil rights movement is as farcical as it is bogus, and black people will tell you that. It is another pr move to create the illusion of centuries of persecution and suffering on an epic scale. Scratch the comparison.

The graph of public sentiment on gay marriage only goes to prove my point about the overwhelming liberal bias in education at all levels. Our students are not asked to form their own opinions on gay marriage they are told that if they don't agree with gay marriage they are just despicable human beings just as many people present themselves on these boards. There is a steady drumbeat of anti Christian propaganda that parallels the efforts to remove every vestige of Christian faith and history from public halls of education. What we have now in public education are lgbt madrasahs. The graph closely parallels the takeover of the education system and really shows how pliable young minds are to repeated suggestion, but Yes just like the op, cause and effect are turned upside down.

I cannot argue the law or pretend to have any legal chops. But while our founders struggled with slavery they never even had a passing thought for gay marriage and while Jefferson would absolutely want all citizens to be treated fairly he would consider the marriage of a man and woman to be the premier union of the land and a necessary component to a stable and moral country. While many here see gay marriage as a positive step only time will tell whether the crumbling of formal norms and the blurring of moral boundaries will strengthen or weaken our nation.

No, I don't think this doesn't take in reality. It would be nice to know what you're replying to. Also I often use the alerts button and could easily miss a post that isn't quoting me.

I was asked what I thought of liberty and I responded. I wasn't talking about how things are.

I'm not sure what you're going on about politicians in Houston for, it doesn't make much sense to me. What's your point?

You say the civil rights movement for black people has nothing to do with the civil rights movement for gay people.

It's different, I'll give you that. If it were the same it would be quite worrying. However there are plenty of comparisons that can be made.

It's still people getting treated as second or third class citizens when the constitution says that shouldn't be the case.

Now you're complaining more people are in favor of protecting people's rights because of liberal education.
Foowkin' 'ell bruv. You have a problem with people getting human rights protection because of liberal education. I'd be jumping up and down saying how damn great liberal education is.

What is this "damn it, black people can vote, stupid liberal education for teaching them how to read and write"?

Why do you not like liberty?

Oh, boohoo, Christianity is disappearing. So what? The US isn't a Christian country.
When Islam does backwards things in the name of Islam everyone says how backwards it is, when Christians do backwards things you complain. Hmmm. Maybe you have more in common with Muslim extremists than you thought.

No, while the founding fathers were not thinking gay marriage, or blacks voting, or women voting, or most people being free, this is what they said.
Many believe the Founding Fathers were intelligent beyond belief. They wrote a constitution for all ages, and it's worked. Problem is conservatives, as the name suggests, fight change, but change will come because the US is more educated, more willing to put full liberty into place instead of having half/half liberty as in the past.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Frig your argument does not recognize reality. People who don't want to make a cake for gay couples are forced to, their liberty is denied. .

And people who don't want to rent a hotel room to blacks are 'forced' to.

They're not forced to in any way/

They have a choice. They can open a business using the laws of the US, which means they can't discriminate, or they can just not open a business.

The choice is theirs. They have to follow health and safety. If they don't want to, they can choose to not open a business.

It's quite simple.

 

[Redfish]

Define "liberty" then we can continue.


Does liberty include the right of a clergyman to refuse to marry two gay men or women? Or does liberty only apply to the things you support?

Definition of ldquo liberty rdquo Collins English Dictionary

"the power of choosing, thinking, and acting for oneself; freedom from control or restriction"

Which would be, the ability to do as you choose as long as it doesn't hurt or harm others, and doesn't get in the way of other people's liberty.

I don't think anyone has the right to get married in any church they choose. So.....

So you agree that any church or chappel should be free to refuse to marry two gays. Good, thats a start.

This is unsurprisingly ignorant.

That private organizations aren't subject to 14th Amendment jurisprudence is fundamental Constitutional doctrine.

Government has never had the authority to compel religious organizations to perform a marriage ceremony for a same-sex couple; this is not and has never been part of the issue.

Consequently there is no 'start,' 'good' or otherwise.

But yet we see lawsuits against bakers, reception halls, wedding chapels, etc for refusing to deal with gay marriages.

Tell me, why would a gay couple want to do business with anyone who does not approve of their lifestyle?

 

[Redfish]

Frig your argument does not recognize reality. People who don't want to make a cake for gay couples are forced to, their liberty is denied. .

And people who don't want to rent a hotel room to blacks are 'forced' to.

They're not forced to in any way/

They have a choice. They can open a business using the laws of the US, which means they can't discriminate, or they can just not open a business.

The choice is theirs. They have to follow health and safety. If they don't want to, they can choose to not open a business.

It's quite simple.

So you would support forcing a gay black owner of a reception hall to rent his facility to the KKK for a rally?

yes or no.

 

[Seawytch]

Frig your argument does not recognize reality. People who don't want to make a cake for gay couples are forced to, their liberty is denied. .

And people who don't want to rent a hotel room to blacks are 'forced' to.

They're not forced to in any way/

They have a choice. They can open a business using the laws of the US, which means they can't discriminate, or they can just not open a business.

The choice is theirs. They have to follow health and safety. If they don't want to, they can choose to not open a business.

It's quite simple.

So you would support forcing a gay black owner of a reception hall to rent his facility to the KKK for a rally?

yes or no.

And of course you can list the local ordinance that includes racist bigot as a protected class, right?

 

[Redfish]

Frig your argument does not recognize reality. People who don't want to make a cake for gay couples are forced to, their liberty is denied. .

And people who don't want to rent a hotel room to blacks are 'forced' to.

They're not forced to in any way/

They have a choice. They can open a business using the laws of the US, which means they can't discriminate, or they can just not open a business.

The choice is theirs. They have to follow health and safety. If they don't want to, they can choose to not open a business.

It's quite simple.

So you would support forcing a gay black owner of a reception hall to rent his facility to the KKK for a rally?

yes or no.

And of course you can list the local ordinance that includes racist bigot as a protected class, right?

the fact that you would ask that question proves that you don't understand the issue.

 

[Seawytch]

Frig your argument does not recognize reality. People who don't want to make a cake for gay couples are forced to, their liberty is denied. .

And people who don't want to rent a hotel room to blacks are 'forced' to.

They're not forced to in any way/

They have a choice. They can open a business using the laws of the US, which means they can't discriminate, or they can just not open a business.

The choice is theirs. They have to follow health and safety. If they don't want to, they can choose to not open a business.

It's quite simple.

So you would support forcing a gay black owner of a reception hall to rent his facility to the KKK for a rally?

yes or no.

And of course you can list the local ordinance that includes racist bigot as a protected class, right?

the fact that you would ask that question proves that you don't understand the issue.

You obviously don't understand the issue. Did you know that there are places where it's perfectly okay to not serve the gays? Do you know why?

 

[frigidweirdo]

So you would support forcing a gay black owner of a reception hall to rent his facility to the KKK for a rally?

yes or no.

Depends.

The problem is here, you have something akin to the shouting fire in a crowded theater. The KKK is rather different to other groups.

Also, it depends a lot on many things. I'm not necessarily opposed to people having businesses which are limited in a certain way. It's a bit too complicated to explain with the time I have right now, which i zero time.

 

[Redfish]

And people who don't want to rent a hotel room to blacks are 'forced' to.

They're not forced to in any way/

They have a choice. They can open a business using the laws of the US, which means they can't discriminate, or they can just not open a business.

The choice is theirs. They have to follow health and safety. If they don't want to, they can choose to not open a business.

It's quite simple.

So you would support forcing a gay black owner of a reception hall to rent his facility to the KKK for a rally?

yes or no.

And of course you can list the local ordinance that includes racist bigot as a protected class, right?

the fact that you would ask that question proves that you don't understand the issue.

You obviously don't understand the issue. Did you know that there are places where it's perfectly okay to not serve the gays? Do you know why?

I can take you to places in this city where a white person will not be served. I am just fine with that. Why is it a one way street?

 

[Redfish]

So you would support forcing a gay black owner of a reception hall to rent his facility to the KKK for a rally?

yes or no.

Depends.

The problem is here, you have something akin to the shouting fire in a crowded theater. The KKK is rather different to other groups.

Also, it depends a lot on many things. I'm not necessarily opposed to people having businesses which are limited in a certain way. It's a bit too complicated to explain with the time I have right now, which i zero time.

No, what it is is the double standard that all of you liberals live with. Its OK if you call a group bigots and refuse to deal with them, but when a conservative does the same thing they should be locked up.

its called HYPOCRISY. deal with your reality.

 

[Syriusly]

They're not forced to in any way/

They have a choice. They can open a business using the laws of the US, which means they can't discriminate, or they can just not open a business.

The choice is theirs. They have to follow health and safety. If they don't want to, they can choose to not open a business.

It's quite simple.

So you would support forcing a gay black owner of a reception hall to rent his facility to the KKK for a rally?

yes or no.

And of course you can list the local ordinance that includes racist bigot as a protected class, right?

the fact that you would ask that question proves that you don't understand the issue.

You obviously don't understand the issue. Did you know that there are places where it's perfectly okay to not serve the gays? Do you know why?

I can take you to places in this city where a white person will not be served. I am just fine with that. Why is it a one way street?

Legally its the same issue- a white person could sue that business as easily as the bakers were sued.

 

[Syriusly]

Frig your argument does not recognize reality. People who don't want to make a cake for gay couples are forced to, their liberty is denied. .

And people who don't want to rent a hotel room to blacks are 'forced' to.

They're not forced to in any way/

They have a choice. They can open a business using the laws of the US, which means they can't discriminate, or they can just not open a business.

The choice is theirs. They have to follow health and safety. If they don't want to, they can choose to not open a business.

It's quite simple.

So you would support forcing a gay black owner of a reception hall to rent his facility to the KKK for a rally?

yes or no.

Is there a law which says that the people cannot be discriminated against because of membership in the KKK?

I suppose if the KKK claimed to be a Christian organization MAYBE they could claim they were being discriminated against as Christians, but that would fail if the reception hall rents to other Christians.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act covers race, color, religion and national origin. Local ordinances may- or may not- address other historically discriminated minorities.

Legally a person can't refuse service to a person because he or she is for example black or Christian, but can still refuse service to a black Christian if the person is rude and obnoxious- and that the owner refuses to do business with rude obnoxious people.

 

[Redfish]

Frig your argument does not recognize reality. People who don't want to make a cake for gay couples are forced to, their liberty is denied. .

And people who don't want to rent a hotel room to blacks are 'forced' to.

They're not forced to in any way/

They have a choice. They can open a business using the laws of the US, which means they can't discriminate, or they can just not open a business.

The choice is theirs. They have to follow health and safety. If they don't want to, they can choose to not open a business.

It's quite simple.

So you would support forcing a gay black owner of a reception hall to rent his facility to the KKK for a rally?

yes or no.

Is there a law which says that the people cannot be discriminated against because of membership in the KKK?

I suppose if the KKK claimed to be a Christian organization MAYBE they could claim they were being discriminated against as Christians, but that would fail if the reception hall rents to other Christians.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act covers race, color, religion and national origin. Local ordinances may- or may not- address other historically discriminated minorities.

Legally a person can't refuse service to a person because he or she is for example black or Christian, but can still refuse service to a black Christian if the person is rude and obnoxious- and that the owner refuses to do business with rude obnoxious people.

can a business refuse to serve gays if they are rude or obnoxious or if serving them would damage his business?

you guys want it one way but refuse to realize that its a two way street. You want to deny service to the KKK because you don't like their beliefs but you want to demand that gays be served by someone who does not believe as they do.

 

[Redfish]

So you would support forcing a gay black owner of a reception hall to rent his facility to the KKK for a rally?

yes or no.

And of course you can list the local ordinance that includes racist bigot as a protected class, right?

the fact that you would ask that question proves that you don't understand the issue.

You obviously don't understand the issue. Did you know that there are places where it's perfectly okay to not serve the gays? Do you know why?

I can take you to places in this city where a white person will not be served. I am just fine with that. Why is it a one way street?

Legally its the same issue- a white person could sue that business as easily as the bakers were sued.

Why would they want to sue them? Why would a white person demand service in a black bar?

this whole debate is stupid. Let people be free to live as they choose and do business with who they choose.

Its called FREEDOM.

 

[Syriusly]

And of course you can list the local ordinance that includes racist bigot as a protected class, right?

the fact that you would ask that question proves that you don't understand the issue.

You obviously don't understand the issue. Did you know that there are places where it's perfectly okay to not serve the gays? Do you know why?

I can take you to places in this city where a white person will not be served. I am just fine with that. Why is it a one way street?

Legally its the same issue- a white person could sue that business as easily as the bakers were sued.

Why would they want to sue them? Why would a white person demand service in a black bar?

this whole debate is stupid. Let people be free to live as they choose and do business with who they choose.

Its called FREEDOM.

So you are in favor of a same gender couple having the freedom to legally marry?

 

[Seawytch]

They're not forced to in any way/

They have a choice. They can open a business using the laws of the US, which means they can't discriminate, or they can just not open a business.

The choice is theirs. They have to follow health and safety. If they don't want to, they can choose to not open a business.

It's quite simple.

So you would support forcing a gay black owner of a reception hall to rent his facility to the KKK for a rally?

yes or no.

And of course you can list the local ordinance that includes racist bigot as a protected class, right?

the fact that you would ask that question proves that you don't understand the issue.

You obviously don't understand the issue. Did you know that there are places where it's perfectly okay to not serve the gays? Do you know why?

I can take you to places in this city where a white person will not be served. I am just fine with that. Why is it a one way street?

And you would either be 1) lying 2) talking about a private club or 3) they are breaking Federal law.

Now, do you want to get back to the question I asked. Do you know why it is perfectly legal to discriminate against gays in some places and not others?

 

[bodecea]

Define "liberty" then we can continue.


Does liberty include the right of a clergyman to refuse to marry two gay men or women? Or does liberty only apply to the things you support?

Definition of ldquo liberty rdquo Collins English Dictionary

"the power of choosing, thinking, and acting for oneself; freedom from control or restriction"

Which would be, the ability to do as you choose as long as it doesn't hurt or harm others, and doesn't get in the way of other people's liberty.

I don't think anyone has the right to get married in any church they choose. So.....

So you agree that any church or chappel should be free to refuse to marry two gays. Good, thats a start.

This is unsurprisingly ignorant.

That private organizations aren't subject to 14th Amendment jurisprudence is fundamental Constitutional doctrine.

Government has never had the authority to compel religious organizations to perform a marriage ceremony for a same-sex couple; this is not and has never been part of the issue.

Consequently there is no 'start,' 'good' or otherwise.

But yet we see lawsuits against bakers, reception halls, wedding chapels, etc for refusing to deal with gay marriages.

Tell me, why would a gay couple want to do business with anyone who does not approve of their lifestyle?

Why did black (and white) college students want to do business with the Woolworth's Lunch Counter in Nashville?