Colorado tries to find middle ground in the gay rights issue

[Mac1958]

This is interesting. Two bills being promoted right now in Colorado:

Gay marriage opponents propose 2 Colorado ballot measures - Washington Times

The first would redefine same-sex marriages as civil unions.

The second would allow wedding-related businesses opposed to gay marriage to hire a contractor to serve same-sex couples.

That sounds like reasonable middle ground. Personally, I don't care how they're defined, but the second one does allow someone to avoid being "forced" to go against their beliefs.

Good enough? Or is compromise still a dirty word?

.

The first is potentially un-Constitutional – separate but equal is just as repugnant to the 14th Amendment as seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law.

Colorado has only one marriage law, available to same- or opposite-sex couples. To give the same law two names just to appease those hostile to gay Americans will likely not pass Constitutional muster.

The second proposal is just as ridiculous, stupid, and pointless.

The issue has nothing to do with 'compromise,' citizens can not be expected to 'compromise' their civil rights, particularly when those hostile to gay Americans don't have a valid position to 'compromise' with.

The second one is done by business all the time for many different reasons. Not pointless or ridiculous and can be done.

Judging by the reaction, evidently such a move represents some kind of threat.

It's a great idea, it makes sense for both "sides", but it does remove what they crave: Intimidation & control.

.

 

[G.T.]

Lol @ "its a great idea."

Wow

 

[mdk]

This is interesting. Two bills being promoted right now in Colorado:

Gay marriage opponents propose 2 Colorado ballot measures - Washington Times

The first would redefine same-sex marriages as civil unions.

The second would allow wedding-related businesses opposed to gay marriage to hire a contractor to serve same-sex couples.

That sounds like reasonable middle ground. Personally, I don't care how they're defined, but the second one does allow someone to avoid being "forced" to go against their beliefs.

Good enough? Or is compromise still a dirty word?

.

The first is potentially un-Constitutional – separate but equal is just as repugnant to the 14th Amendment as seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law.

Colorado has only one marriage law, available to same- or opposite-sex couples. To give the same law two names just to appease those hostile to gay Americans will likely not pass Constitutional muster.

The second proposal is just as ridiculous, stupid, and pointless.

The issue has nothing to do with 'compromise,' citizens can not be expected to 'compromise' their civil rights, particularly when those hostile to gay Americans don't have a valid position to 'compromise' with.

The second one is done by business all the time for many different reasons. Not pointless or ridiculous and can be done.

Judging by the reaction, evidently such a move represents some kind of threat.

It's a great idea, it makes sense for both "sides", but it does remove what they crave: Intimidation & control.

.

It make as much sense as a screen door on a submarine. Here gays, I know you worked hard and long for marriage but we'll take yours away and invent something that doesn't give you all the same rights as marriage. We cool now? lol. That isn't a compromise, it is a capitulation. If the bill had all the same rights as marriage I would agree but it doesn't.

 

[LoneLaugher]

This is interesting. Two bills being promoted right now in Colorado:

Gay marriage opponents propose 2 Colorado ballot measures - Washington Times

The first would redefine same-sex marriages as civil unions.

The second would allow wedding-related businesses opposed to gay marriage to hire a contractor to serve same-sex couples.

That sounds like reasonable middle ground. Personally, I don't care how they're defined, but the second one does allow someone to avoid being "forced" to go against their beliefs.

Good enough? Or is compromise still a dirty word?

.

The first is potentially un-Constitutional – separate but equal is just as repugnant to the 14th Amendment as seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law.

Colorado has only one marriage law, available to same- or opposite-sex couples. To give the same law two names just to appease those hostile to gay Americans will likely not pass Constitutional muster.

The second proposal is just as ridiculous, stupid, and pointless.

The issue has nothing to do with 'compromise,' citizens can not be expected to 'compromise' their civil rights, particularly when those hostile to gay Americans don't have a valid position to 'compromise' with.

The second one is done by business all the time for many different reasons. Not pointless or ridiculous and can be done.

Judging by the reaction, evidently such a move represents some kind of threat.

It's a great idea, it makes sense for both "sides", but it does remove what they crave: Intimidation & control.

.

It make as much sense as a screen door on a submarine. Here gays, I know you worked hard and long for marriage but we'll take yours away and invent something that doesn't give you all the same rights as marriage. We cool now? lol. That isn't a compromise, it is a capitulation. If the bill had all the same rights as marriage I would agree but it doesn't.

MDK.....are you saying that "separate but equal" is something that you agree with? I think you are.

 

[Mac1958]

This is interesting. Two bills being promoted right now in Colorado:

Gay marriage opponents propose 2 Colorado ballot measures - Washington Times

The first would redefine same-sex marriages as civil unions.

The second would allow wedding-related businesses opposed to gay marriage to hire a contractor to serve same-sex couples.

That sounds like reasonable middle ground. Personally, I don't care how they're defined, but the second one does allow someone to avoid being "forced" to go against their beliefs.

Good enough? Or is compromise still a dirty word?

.

The first is potentially un-Constitutional – separate but equal is just as repugnant to the 14th Amendment as seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law.

Colorado has only one marriage law, available to same- or opposite-sex couples. To give the same law two names just to appease those hostile to gay Americans will likely not pass Constitutional muster.

The second proposal is just as ridiculous, stupid, and pointless.

The issue has nothing to do with 'compromise,' citizens can not be expected to 'compromise' their civil rights, particularly when those hostile to gay Americans don't have a valid position to 'compromise' with.

The second one is done by business all the time for many different reasons. Not pointless or ridiculous and can be done.

Judging by the reaction, evidently such a move represents some kind of threat.

It's a great idea, it makes sense for both "sides", but it does remove what they crave: Intimidation & control.

.

It make as much sense as a screen door on a submarine. Here gays, I know you worked hard and long for marriage but we'll take yours away and invent something that doesn't give you all the same rights as marriage. We cool now? lol. That isn't a compromise, it is a capitulation. If the bill had all the same rights as marriage I would agree but it doesn't.

As I said, I don't care about the "civil union" thing, but I do think the second idea makes sense for all concerned.

.

 

[mdk]

This is interesting. Two bills being promoted right now in Colorado:

Gay marriage opponents propose 2 Colorado ballot measures - Washington Times

The first would redefine same-sex marriages as civil unions.

The second would allow wedding-related businesses opposed to gay marriage to hire a contractor to serve same-sex couples.

That sounds like reasonable middle ground. Personally, I don't care how they're defined, but the second one does allow someone to avoid being "forced" to go against their beliefs.

Good enough? Or is compromise still a dirty word?

.

The first is potentially un-Constitutional – separate but equal is just as repugnant to the 14th Amendment as seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law.

Colorado has only one marriage law, available to same- or opposite-sex couples. To give the same law two names just to appease those hostile to gay Americans will likely not pass Constitutional muster.

The second proposal is just as ridiculous, stupid, and pointless.

The issue has nothing to do with 'compromise,' citizens can not be expected to 'compromise' their civil rights, particularly when those hostile to gay Americans don't have a valid position to 'compromise' with.

The second one is done by business all the time for many different reasons. Not pointless or ridiculous and can be done.

Judging by the reaction, evidently such a move represents some kind of threat.

It's a great idea, it makes sense for both "sides", but it does remove what they crave: Intimidation & control.

.

It make as much sense as a screen door on a submarine. Here gays, I know you worked hard and long for marriage but we'll take yours away and invent something that doesn't give you all the same rights as marriage. We cool now? lol. That isn't a compromise, it is a capitulation. If the bill had all the same rights as marriage I would agree but it doesn't.

MDK.....are you saying that "separate but equal" is something that you agree with? I think you are.

I would have been totally fine with civil unions. Whether they would have survived a court challenge or not is another matter. That ship sailed though when social conservatives decided that civil unions were too much like marriage for their liking and they banned those as well. By giving gays civil unions it would have split the movement in two back in 2000's. After they were banned I put my full support behind full marriage equality. The whole thing is moot now b/c the first bill isn't going anywhere.

 

[mdk]

This is interesting. Two bills being promoted right now in Colorado:

Gay marriage opponents propose 2 Colorado ballot measures - Washington Times

The first would redefine same-sex marriages as civil unions.

The second would allow wedding-related businesses opposed to gay marriage to hire a contractor to serve same-sex couples.

That sounds like reasonable middle ground. Personally, I don't care how they're defined, but the second one does allow someone to avoid being "forced" to go against their beliefs.

Good enough? Or is compromise still a dirty word?

.

The first is potentially un-Constitutional – separate but equal is just as repugnant to the 14th Amendment as seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law.

Colorado has only one marriage law, available to same- or opposite-sex couples. To give the same law two names just to appease those hostile to gay Americans will likely not pass Constitutional muster.

The second proposal is just as ridiculous, stupid, and pointless.

The issue has nothing to do with 'compromise,' citizens can not be expected to 'compromise' their civil rights, particularly when those hostile to gay Americans don't have a valid position to 'compromise' with.

The second one is done by business all the time for many different reasons. Not pointless or ridiculous and can be done.

Judging by the reaction, evidently such a move represents some kind of threat.

It's a great idea, it makes sense for both "sides", but it does remove what they crave: Intimidation & control.

.

It make as much sense as a screen door on a submarine. Here gays, I know you worked hard and long for marriage but we'll take yours away and invent something that doesn't give you all the same rights as marriage. We cool now? lol. That isn't a compromise, it is a capitulation. If the bill had all the same rights as marriage I would agree but it doesn't.

As I said, I don't care about the "civil union" thing, but I do think the second idea makes sense for all concerned.

.

The second idea wouldn't have worked as well in my opinion, then again, I think PA laws are bullshit and should be scrapped almost entirely. Something very few want to occur.

 

[Mac1958]

The first is potentially un-Constitutional – separate but equal is just as repugnant to the 14th Amendment as seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law.

Colorado has only one marriage law, available to same- or opposite-sex couples. To give the same law two names just to appease those hostile to gay Americans will likely not pass Constitutional muster.

The second proposal is just as ridiculous, stupid, and pointless.

The issue has nothing to do with 'compromise,' citizens can not be expected to 'compromise' their civil rights, particularly when those hostile to gay Americans don't have a valid position to 'compromise' with.

The second one is done by business all the time for many different reasons. Not pointless or ridiculous and can be done.

Judging by the reaction, evidently such a move represents some kind of threat.

It's a great idea, it makes sense for both "sides", but it does remove what they crave: Intimidation & control.

.

It make as much sense as a screen door on a submarine. Here gays, I know you worked hard and long for marriage but we'll take yours away and invent something that doesn't give you all the same rights as marriage. We cool now? lol. That isn't a compromise, it is a capitulation. If the bill had all the same rights as marriage I would agree but it doesn't.

As I said, I don't care about the "civil union" thing, but I do think the second idea makes sense for all concerned.

.

The second idea wouldn't have worked as well in my opinion, then again, I think PA laws are bullshit and should be scrapped almost entirely. Something very few want to occur.

Thing is, it can happen with or without a law behind it. It's done in all kinds of businesses, no reason why it can't be done here.

.

 

[Ravi]

This is interesting. Two bills being promoted right now in Colorado:

Gay marriage opponents propose 2 Colorado ballot measures - Washington Times

The first would redefine same-sex marriages as civil unions.

The second would allow wedding-related businesses opposed to gay marriage to hire a contractor to serve same-sex couples.

That sounds like reasonable middle ground. Personally, I don't care how they're defined, but the second one does allow someone to avoid being "forced" to go against their beliefs.

Good enough? Or is compromise still a dirty word?

.

The first is potentially un-Constitutional – separate but equal is just as repugnant to the 14th Amendment as seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law.

Colorado has only one marriage law, available to same- or opposite-sex couples. To give the same law two names just to appease those hostile to gay Americans will likely not pass Constitutional muster.

The second proposal is just as ridiculous, stupid, and pointless.

The issue has nothing to do with 'compromise,' citizens can not be expected to 'compromise' their civil rights, particularly when those hostile to gay Americans don't have a valid position to 'compromise' with.

The second one is done by business all the time for many different reasons. Not pointless or ridiculous and can be done.

Judging by the reaction, evidently such a move represents some kind of threat.

It's a great idea, it makes sense for both "sides", but it does remove what they crave: Intimidation & control.

.

It make as much sense as a screen door on a submarine. Here gays, I know you worked hard and long for marriage but we'll take yours away and invent something that doesn't give you all the same rights as marriage. We cool now? lol. That isn't a compromise, it is a capitulation. If the bill had all the same rights as marriage I would agree but it doesn't.

As I said, I don't care about the "civil union" thing, but I do think the second idea makes sense for all concerned.

.

It would make no difference to fundies. The would still be engaging in commerce With the ghey.

 

[mdk]

The second one is done by business all the time for many different reasons. Not pointless or ridiculous and can be done.

Judging by the reaction, evidently such a move represents some kind of threat.

It's a great idea, it makes sense for both "sides", but it does remove what they crave: Intimidation & control.

.

It make as much sense as a screen door on a submarine. Here gays, I know you worked hard and long for marriage but we'll take yours away and invent something that doesn't give you all the same rights as marriage. We cool now? lol. That isn't a compromise, it is a capitulation. If the bill had all the same rights as marriage I would agree but it doesn't.

As I said, I don't care about the "civil union" thing, but I do think the second idea makes sense for all concerned.

.

The second idea wouldn't have worked as well in my opinion, then again, I think PA laws are bullshit and should be scrapped almost entirely. Something very few want to occur.

Thing is, it can happen with or without a law behind it. It's done in all kinds of businesses, no reason why it can't be done here.

.

If it can happen with or without the law then why do they need the new law? Apparently they do the law. Either way, this seems like nothing but political theater.

 

[Mac1958]

Judging by the reaction, evidently such a move represents some kind of threat.

It's a great idea, it makes sense for both "sides", but it does remove what they crave: Intimidation & control.

.

It make as much sense as a screen door on a submarine. Here gays, I know you worked hard and long for marriage but we'll take yours away and invent something that doesn't give you all the same rights as marriage. We cool now? lol. That isn't a compromise, it is a capitulation. If the bill had all the same rights as marriage I would agree but it doesn't.

As I said, I don't care about the "civil union" thing, but I do think the second idea makes sense for all concerned.

.

The second idea wouldn't have worked as well in my opinion, then again, I think PA laws are bullshit and should be scrapped almost entirely. Something very few want to occur.

Thing is, it can happen with or without a law behind it. It's done in all kinds of businesses, no reason why it can't be done here.

.

If it can happen with or without the law then why do they need the new law? Apparently they do the law. Either way, this seems like nothing but political theater.

Sure, probably the politicians transparently playing to the base, that's all most of them are good for, for the most part.

Still a good idea.

.

 

[JoeB131]

This is interesting. Two bills being promoted right now in Colorado:

Gay marriage opponents propose 2 Colorado ballot measures - Washington Times

The first would redefine same-sex marriages as civil unions.

The second would allow wedding-related businesses opposed to gay marriage to hire a contractor to serve same-sex couples.

That sounds like reasonable middle ground. Personally, I don't care how they're defined, but the second one does allow someone to avoid being "forced" to go against their beliefs.

Good enough? Or is compromise still a dirty word?

So you are asking gays to give up some of what they've already worked hard and fought long to win to make Christian bigots happy?

Asking gays to be happy with "civil unions' is like asking blacks if they'd be happier with "Colored" drinking fountains if we made the fountains a little nicer.

No one is forced to go against their beliefs. They always have the option of finding something else to do for a living. Just like the rest of us do when we find our paychecks might make us go against our "beliefs".

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

First one will not pass and even if it did passed the courts would strike it down.

Second should not pass either because like other posters pointed out the abuse that can come from it.

Also like one poster pointed out those bills are just for show and the GOP of Colorado know it will not gain steam, but they have to do something to keep the base loyal even if it is something that would never pass...

 

[martybegan]

PA laws as you want them legislate the right to free exercise of religion away, so I guess those have to go, right?

No one's free exercise of religion is gone.

Says you. Said baker has to participate in a wedding that goes against their moral code. They have lost their free exercise of religion by being forced to participate or be fined by the government, and probably put out of business.
Free exercise is not limited to the clergy, or going to church, or what you do behind closed doors.

If they can't abide by local laws they should have picked a different business. No one forced them into the wedding cake business. And no religion forbids baking a gay couple a wedding cake.

A simple response, from a simple person. Where is the government interest in forcing them out of a means of making a living because some people's feelings are hurt?

Nobody is forcing them to use these baker's either, and it isn't like bakers are lining up in droves to reject gay people.

And most religions see homosexuality as a sin, that is all that needs to be said. Why would you want someone who thinks your way of life is sinful baking a cake for what is supposed to be a celebration of you and your lifestlye?

What was simple about it?

It's the "party line", nothing more.

 

[martybegan]

if they applied the fee to everyone who wanted a dog, I don't see how they got hit on PA. If anything it was an ADA violation.

It's discrimination against pet owners, who I am not sure are a protected class (yet).

I disagree with the Condo association on making fees for dogs, but to me they have the right to do it.

And the difference between PA laws and ADA laws are?

They come from different laws passed at different times?

Both tell business's that they cannot discriminate against specific groups.

Good- or bad?

A person with disabilities who cannot access something actually suffers harm. Do I think the court here went overboard? Yes, because it applied the dog rules "equally" even though people like that are assholes.

These laws are bad when applied as the end all be all, without any reasonable review, such as ADA laws being applied on a construction site, where a disabled person would be at a significant risk. Why do ironworkers need a handicapped bathroom?

Wut? The free market won't provide an accessible place to buy a wedding cake for handicapped peeps?

Stop being stupid.

 

[WorldWatcher]

This is interesting. Two bills being promoted right now in Colorado:

Gay marriage opponents propose 2 Colorado ballot measures - Washington Times

The first would redefine same-sex marriages as civil unions.

The second would allow wedding-related businesses opposed to gay marriage to hire a contractor to serve same-sex couples.

That sounds like reasonable middle ground. Personally, I don't care how they're defined, but the second one does allow someone to avoid being "forced" to go against their beliefs.

Good enough? Or is compromise still a dirty word?

.

From the OP article:

The proposed constitutional amendment regarding civil unions states, “A marriage is recognized as a form of religious expression of the people of Colorado that shall not be abridged through the state prescribing or recognizing any law that implicitly or explicitly defines a marriage in opposition or agreement with any particular religious belief.”

Any same-sex couple married before the proposed amendment takes effect or in another state would have their relationship redefined as a civil union, which carries some but not all of the legal rights of marriage.​

The emphasized passage means that Colorado would be eliminating ALL Civil Marriage. There would be none for anyone, not same-sex couples or different-sex couples.

Many have cited religious belief that "marriage is between a man and a woman". Since that is a religious belief, then this amendment bars Colorado would not be able to have different-sex Civil Marriage. Many Churches have become open to the idea that same-sex marriage is OK, therefore this amendment bars Colorado from having same-sex Civil Marriages.

If you can't have a marriage between a man and a woman or marriage between a man and a man (or woman and a woman), Civil Marriage is eliminated.

********************************

The second part calls for Civil Unions for same-sex couples, what happens to different-sex couples when their marriage is eliminated?

>>>>

 

[rightwinger]

This is interesting. Two bills being promoted right now in Colorado:

Gay marriage opponents propose 2 Colorado ballot measures - Washington Times

The first would redefine same-sex marriages as civil unions.

The second would allow wedding-related businesses opposed to gay marriage to hire a contractor to serve same-sex couples.

That sounds like reasonable middle ground. Personally, I don't care how they're defined, but the second one does allow someone to avoid being "forced" to go against their beliefs.

Good enough? Or is compromise still a dirty word?

.

Good enough? In a word, no...

Why not?

.

Separate is not equal...

Wow, that is deep. You read that off a bumper sticker. I live in Colorado, and this deal is not going to make anyone happy, GAYS want to dominate the debate, and folks that stand for traditional marriage are losing power and find this as a sell out, not a comprise.

You have already lost

Colorado needs to find a way to move on and accept the fact that gays can be married, just like the rest of the country

 

[Seawytch]

The fundamental principle of laws is weasely now?

Referring only to "the law" and not the reason behind the law is.

Woolworth's was only following "the law" when it had segregated lunch counters. By your argument, those were right, and just and should be followed, because big daddy government knows best.

First I'll ask you to prove that Woolworth's was required by state law to refuse service to blacks.

Then I would like you to prove to me that once it became against federal law to refuse service to blacks, that Woolworth was somehow not obligated to obey that law.

That's two tasks for you.

Well here is Alabama's law as an example:

Examples of Jim Crow laws - October 1960 - Civil Rights - A Jackson Sun Special Report

It shall be unlawful to conduct a restaurant or other place for the serving of food in the city, at which white and colored people are served in the same room, unless such white and colored persons are effectually separated by a solid partition extending from the floor upward to a distance of seven feet or higher, and unless a separate entrance from the street is provided for each compartment. Alabama

and woolworth is covered because it was clearly defined as a PA, as seen below. I don't see bakers providing a contracted service are covered.

Establishments affecting interstate commerce or supported in their activities by State action as places of public accommodation; lodgings; facilities principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises; gasoline stations; places of exhibition or entertainment; other covered establishments
Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this subchapter if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
(4) any establishment
(A)
(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or
(ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and
(B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.

42 U.S. Code 2000a - Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation US Law LII Legal Information Institute

And once federal law had rendered that state statue unenforceable, then what was Woolworth's legal obligation?

Under federal law, they had to take all comers at their lunch counter, in particular because of this:

any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;

Considering the systemic nature of the discrimination, made by these laws, things such as this were necessary to correct the past issues.

This isn't applicable to a few bakers not wanting to bake cakes, it is not systemic, it is not government mandated, and a contracted service such as this is not a public accommodation.

Title II of the CRA covers much more than race...

 

[Seawytch]

Neither end of the spectrum believes in a middle ground and we're more and more divided as a result.

Well, congratulations folks, you're evidently getting what you want.

.

none on the "right" have proposed a middle ground....

Mac's middle ground requires oppressed groups to accept a certain degree of oppression so as to not upset anyone. It is the POV of a person who has no empathy for oppressed groups. Simple.

Bingo!! You sir are deserving of a cigar!

 

[SwimExpert]

Good, folks who defend "traditional marriage" are finally losing, another victory for rationality.

Yes, because it's "rational" to deprive kids in marriage of either a mother or father.