Marriage Beliefs: Honesty, can't we ADMIT we have political differences in bias and beliefs???

[HappyJoy]

2. or if people AGREE to have marriage through the state open to all, including homosexual couples, also AGREEING to allow free expressions of Christmas, God and Jesus, prayers and Bibles, crosses and Nativity scenes, creation taught in schools and allowed in public institutions as references (as long as these are NOT forced on people in any abusive way, and the same with not forcing homosexuality on people but allowing people of these beliefs to express them freely as what Christians ask for Christianity).]

Why do you insist on equating 'gay marriage' with 'nativity scenes"?

How did you possibly not get that?

Her point is that you want tolerance towards gays, do you actually believe in all tolerance? Such as Christian nativity scenes? Or is your tolerance selective?

Free expressions of religion are already legal.

HappyJoy
????

1. What about the case of removing crosses from memorials, such as one case where the Court fined the defense thousands of dollars per day that it wasn't removed. And the lawyers seeking removal even BLOCKED the sale of the property to a private group seeking to preserve the cross, since they argued that the govt was still favoring religion by selling the property to that group?

Isn't a fine as a penalty for NOT removing a cross making
that display a violation disobeying court order and thus violating law?

There are multiple cases like this. Sorry if I run them together but I will try to add links to specific cases: Mount Soledad cross controversy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

2. What about the case of a religious freedom group that threatened to sue to remove a cross design off a memorial to a teacher, because it was on public school property?

Atheist group threatens suit over angels on memorial to beloved teacher Fox News

Isn't this saying it is against the law to have a cross and angels on public property.
Or is it bullying and harassment if no lawsuit actually occurred?

I'm sorry, public property is

2. or if people AGREE to have marriage through the state open to all, including homosexual couples, also AGREEING to allow free expressions of Christmas, God and Jesus, prayers and Bibles, crosses and Nativity scenes, creation taught in schools and allowed in public institutions as references (as long as these are NOT forced on people in any abusive way, and the same with not forcing homosexuality on people but allowing people of these beliefs to express them freely as what Christians ask for Christianity).]

Why do you insist on equating 'gay marriage' with 'nativity scenes"?

How did you possibly not get that?

Her point is that you want tolerance towards gays, do you actually believe in all tolerance? Such as Christian nativity scenes? Or is your tolerance selective?

Free expressions of religion are already legal.

HappyJoy
????

1. What about the case of removing crosses from memorials, such as one case where the Court fined the defense thousands of dollars per day that it wasn't removed. And the lawyers seeking removal even BLOCKED the sale of the property to a private group seeking to preserve the cross, since they argued that the govt was still favoring religion by selling the property to that group?

Isn't a fine as a penalty for NOT removing a cross making
that display a violation disobeying court order and thus violating law?

There are multiple cases like this. Sorry if I run them together but I will try to add links to specific cases: Mount Soledad cross controversy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

2. What about the case of a religious freedom group that threatened to sue to remove a cross design off a memorial to a teacher, because it was on public school property?

Atheist group threatens suit over angels on memorial to beloved teacher Fox News

Isn't this saying it is against the law to have a cross and angels on public property.
Or is it bullying and harassment if no lawsuit actually occurred?

I guess you think the free expression of religion revolves around prodding up religious symbols on public lands. it doesn't, put it on your own property or find someone who has the space. This is applicable to everyone.

 

[kaz]

2. or if people AGREE to have marriage through the state open to all, including homosexual couples, also AGREEING to allow free expressions of Christmas, God and Jesus, prayers and Bibles, crosses and Nativity scenes, creation taught in schools and allowed in public institutions as references (as long as these are NOT forced on people in any abusive way, and the same with not forcing homosexuality on people but allowing people of these beliefs to express them freely as what Christians ask for Christianity).]

Why do you insist on equating 'gay marriage' with 'nativity scenes"?

How did you possibly not get that?

Her point is that you want tolerance towards gays, do you actually believe in all tolerance? Such as Christian nativity scenes? Or is your tolerance selective?

Free expressions of religion are already legal.

HappyJoy
????

1. What about the case of removing crosses from memorials, such as one case where the Court fined the defense thousands of dollars per day that it wasn't removed. And the lawyers seeking removal even BLOCKED the sale of the property to a private group seeking to preserve the cross, since they argued that the govt was still favoring religion by selling the property to that group?

Isn't a fine as a penalty for NOT removing a cross making
that display a violation disobeying court order and thus violating law?

There are multiple cases like this. Sorry if I run them together but I will try to add links to specific cases: Mount Soledad cross controversy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

2. What about the case of a religious freedom group that threatened to sue to remove a cross design off a memorial to a teacher, because it was on public school property?

Atheist group threatens suit over angels on memorial to beloved teacher Fox News

Isn't this saying it is against the law to have a cross and angels on public property.
Or is it bullying and harassment if no lawsuit actually occurred?

I'm sorry, public property is

2. or if people AGREE to have marriage through the state open to all, including homosexual couples, also AGREEING to allow free expressions of Christmas, God and Jesus, prayers and Bibles, crosses and Nativity scenes, creation taught in schools and allowed in public institutions as references (as long as these are NOT forced on people in any abusive way, and the same with not forcing homosexuality on people but allowing people of these beliefs to express them freely as what Christians ask for Christianity).]

Why do you insist on equating 'gay marriage' with 'nativity scenes"?

How did you possibly not get that?

Her point is that you want tolerance towards gays, do you actually believe in all tolerance? Such as Christian nativity scenes? Or is your tolerance selective?

Free expressions of religion are already legal.

HappyJoy
????

1. What about the case of removing crosses from memorials, such as one case where the Court fined the defense thousands of dollars per day that it wasn't removed. And the lawyers seeking removal even BLOCKED the sale of the property to a private group seeking to preserve the cross, since they argued that the govt was still favoring religion by selling the property to that group?

Isn't a fine as a penalty for NOT removing a cross making
that display a violation disobeying court order and thus violating law?

There are multiple cases like this. Sorry if I run them together but I will try to add links to specific cases: Mount Soledad cross controversy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

2. What about the case of a religious freedom group that threatened to sue to remove a cross design off a memorial to a teacher, because it was on public school property?

Atheist group threatens suit over angels on memorial to beloved teacher Fox News

Isn't this saying it is against the law to have a cross and angels on public property.
Or is it bullying and harassment if no lawsuit actually occurred?

I guess you think the free expression of religion revolves around prodding up religious symbols on public lands. it doesn't, put it on your own property or find someone who has the space. This is applicable to everyone.

How does a nativity scene at Christmas prevent anyone from freely expressing their own religion?

How many of you leftists who think it does show up on December 25 at work?

 

[emilynghiem]

How did you possibly not get that?

Her point is that you want tolerance towards gays, do you actually believe in all tolerance? Such as Christian nativity scenes? Or is your tolerance selective?

I'm sorry, public property is . . .

I guess you think the free expression of religion revolves around prodding up religious symbols on public lands. it doesn't, put it on your own property or find someone who has the space. This is applicable to everyone.

OKAY HappyJoy So why can't marriage be treated the same way?
Keep it OUT of public institutions and keep it in private so everyone is treated the same way.

So this would treat gay marriage or traditional marriage the same.
And keep any beliefs about marriage OUT OF the public sector.
Get it?

 

[HappyJoy]

How did you possibly not get that?

Her point is that you want tolerance towards gays, do you actually believe in all tolerance? Such as Christian nativity scenes? Or is your tolerance selective?

I'm sorry, public property is . . .

I guess you think the free expression of religion revolves around prodding up religious symbols on public lands. it doesn't, put it on your own property or find someone who has the space. This is applicable to everyone.

OKAY HappyJoy So why can't marriage be treated the same way?
Keep it OUT of public institutions and keep it in private so everyone is treated the same way.

So this would treat gay marriage or traditional marriage the same.
And keep any beliefs about marriage OUT OF the public sector.
Get it?

What? Don't get gay married then. Plus, marriage as far as the government is concerned is not religious, that's between you, your spouse and your church.

 

[emilynghiem]

I believe in equality.

Can equality be established in more than one way:
1. letting all citizens have civil unions, custody and estate contracts through the state
while letting marriages be kept in private so people are free to exercise their beliefs at will without political interference
2. or if people AGREE to have marriage through the state open to all, including homosexual couples, also AGREEING to allow free expressions of Christmas, God and Jesus, prayers and Bibles, crosses and Nativity scenes, creation taught in schools and allowed in public institutions as references (as long as these are NOT forced on people in any abusive way, and the same with not forcing homosexuality on people but allowing people of these beliefs to express them freely as what Christians ask for Christianity).

If there is equality for homosexuality and gay marriage included in public policy,
is there equality for Christianity and the Christmas culture included in public policy?

Are you for equality for everyone's beliefs, or just your own Luddly Neddite

He's for the equality of everyone being forced to agree with him.

That's fine if he likes to be treated that way when Christians only defend religious freedom for those they agree with.
I don't think he likes that too much, and neither do I.

So it is up to him to decide if he wants to change his side of this equation.
The people I find who do open up and defend the rights and consent of others INCLUSIVELY,
tend to be more influential in encouraging others to do the same.

Luddly Neddite will be even more and more effective and influential
the more he enforces laws equally in defense of all sides, so that his own is included.

It just makes sense, that if all sides push together in an AGREED direction, instead of against each other,
we will make progress faster and smoother in reaching mutual goals. We just have to agree on the focus and direction
instead of taking opposite sides and remaining stuck cancelling each other out, mutually frustrated and wasting resources.

 

[emilynghiem]

How did you possibly not get that?

Her point is that you want tolerance towards gays, do you actually believe in all tolerance? Such as Christian nativity scenes? Or is your tolerance selective?

I'm sorry, public property is . . .

I guess you think the free expression of religion revolves around prodding up religious symbols on public lands. it doesn't, put it on your own property or find someone who has the space. This is applicable to everyone.

OKAY HappyJoy So why can't marriage be treated the same way?
Keep it OUT of public institutions and keep it in private so everyone is treated the same way.

So this would treat gay marriage or traditional marriage the same.
And keep any beliefs about marriage OUT OF the public sector.
Get it?

What? Don't get gay married then. Plus, marriage as far as the government is concerned is not religious, that's between you, your spouse and your church.

HappyJoy
If marriage is not religious, then you can substitute the word civil union or other secular term
and still get what you want then.

You don't have to use the term marriage if it means something religious other people don't agree to.

Like the word God does not have to offend Buddhists who see that it stands for a general concept that is good.
But atheists who argue it means something religious they oppose can argue to remove that reference.

So if people don't agree religiously over a word and what it means, then why not remove it and substitute civil union or
something they AGREE is a secular neutral term.

 

[HappyJoy]

How did you possibly not get that?

Her point is that you want tolerance towards gays, do you actually believe in all tolerance? Such as Christian nativity scenes? Or is your tolerance selective?

I'm sorry, public property is . . .

I guess you think the free expression of religion revolves around prodding up religious symbols on public lands. it doesn't, put it on your own property or find someone who has the space. This is applicable to everyone.

OKAY HappyJoy So why can't marriage be treated the same way?
Keep it OUT of public institutions and keep it in private so everyone is treated the same way.

So this would treat gay marriage or traditional marriage the same.
And keep any beliefs about marriage OUT OF the public sector.
Get it?

What? Don't get gay married then. Plus, marriage as far as the government is concerned is not religious, that's between you, your spouse and your church.

HappyJoy
If marriage is not religious, then you can substitute the word civil union or other secular term
and still get what you want then.

You don't have to use the term marriage if it means something religious other people don't agree to.

Like the word God does not have to offend Buddhists who see that it stands for a general concept that is good.
But atheists who argue it means something religious they oppose can argue to remove that reference.

So if people don't agree religiously over a word and what it means, then why not remove it and substitute civil union or
something they AGREE is a secular neutral term.

See, you really can believe whatever you want. However, there is such a thing as a secular marriage and it's been legal for a long, long time. If you choose to believe that every marriage is made with god in mind, you'd be mistaken.

Just like the Catholic church only recognizes Catholic marriages. Unless you're Catholic, who gives a shit what they think?

 

[Cecilie1200]

5. Let each State decide. This is not a U.S. Constitutional issue.

NO.

It is not a state issue. You big government RWs just want more and more laws but the govt has no place in our private lives.

If YOU are a consenting adult and you want to marry a consenting adult, its is none of my business.

Period.

That's rich, since WE don't want more laws. We were perfectly happy ignoring homosexual couples. Most of us would have been perfectly happy to take any antiquated laws about prosecuting people simply for engaging in sodomy off the books, since they were rarely ever enforced and, when someone DID try to revive them, left us with the reaction of, "We don't have better things to do with our taxes and our cops?"

It was the left that brought us to this pass, because that wasn't good enough for you. Oh, no. You were going to show us how morally superior you were and bludgeon us into silence and at least the pretense of knuckling under. So you flounced into court and started demanding (illegally-enacted) laws recognizing your viewpoint as the only valid one, and then you were shocked and outraged that people didn't just lie down and capitulate, and NOW you want to pussy-ache about the natural pushback as "wanting more and more laws".

I'm sure your brother and sister ignoramuses buy that, because you all have memory spans akin to the lives of mayflies, but those of us who can pay attention and remember haven't forgotten how we got here.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The left is intolerant of people who refuse to subscribe to their view of the world. That's how you end up with a liberal run government agency awarding a $135,000 judgment to a lesbian couple because a baker refused to bake them a freaking cake, that is an utterly ridiculous amount. It was intentionally meant to punish and set an example, to destroy the baker's business and the baker personally. That's your so called liberal tolerance for you. I think these liberal scum know where they can go and what they can do when they get there.

What's utterly ridiculous is the ignorance and stupidity of your post.

Conservatives are for the most part intolerant of people who refuse to subscribe to their view of the world, not 'the left.'

It's conservatives who for the most part seek to deny gay Americans equal protection of the law by prohibiting them from accessing marriage law, it's conservatives who for the most part seek to deny women their right to privacy, it's conservatives who for the most part seek to deny minorities their voting rights, and its conservatives who for the most part seek to deny immigrants their due process rights – not 'the left.'

Judgments against those who violate necessary, proper, and Constitutional public accommodations laws are perfectly appropriate and consistent with the law, just compensation for those adversely effected by discrimination in the marketplace, and a just penalty for business owners who willfully violate lawful regulatory policy as authorized by the Commerce Clause, the same just penalties as if employers maintained unsafe working conditions or failed to pay a minimum wage.

 

[Kosh]

The left is intolerant of people who refuse to subscribe to their view of the world. That's how you end up with a liberal run government agency awarding a $135,000 judgment to a lesbian couple because a baker refused to bake them a freaking cake, that is an utterly ridiculous amount. It was intentionally meant to punish and set an example, to destroy the baker's business and the baker personally. That's your so called liberal tolerance for you. I think these liberal scum know where they can go and what they can do when they get there.

What's utterly ridiculous is the ignorance and stupidity of your post.

Conservatives are for the most part intolerant of people who refuse to subscribe to their view of the world, not 'the left.'

It's conservatives who for the most part seek to deny gay Americans equal protection of the law by prohibiting them from accessing marriage law, it's conservatives who for the most part seek to deny women their right to privacy, it's conservatives who for the most part seek to deny minorities their voting rights, and its conservatives who for the most part seek to deny immigrants their due process rights – not 'the left.'

Judgments against those who violate necessary, proper, and Constitutional public accommodations laws are perfectly appropriate and consistent with the law, just compensation for those adversely effected by discrimination in the marketplace, and a just penalty for business owners who willfully violate lawful regulatory policy as authorized by the Commerce Clause, the same just penalties as if employers maintained unsafe working conditions or failed to pay a minimum wage.

Your words:

What's utterly ridiculous is the ignorance and stupidity of your post.

The irony impaired far left drones are at it again.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Marriage Beliefs: Honesty, can't we ADMIT we have political differences in bias and beliefs???"

Of course we can, but that's not at issue.

At issue is those hostile to gay Americans seeking to deny same-sex couples their right to due process and equal protection of the law by prohibiting them access to marriage law in violation of the 14th Amendment.

You're at liberty to have your beliefs and live by them, but you're not at liberty to seek to compel others to conform to your beliefs by force of law.

As already correctly noted: when a court rules in a manner you perceive to be 'contrary' to your beliefs, that's not an 'attack' on those beliefs, that's a matter where your beliefs are in conflict with settled, accepted Constitutional case law.

 

[G.T.]

The op is an epic fail.

It doesnt take away anyone who doesnt believe in gay marriage's rights to allow gays to marry in the eyes of the Government.

Fail fail fail.

 

[Seawytch]

I believe in equality.

Unless you disagree with them, then BAKE THAT DAMN CAKE

Public Accommodation laws...serving customers despite their "deeply held religious beliefs" since 1964.

Comparing the gross injustices of separate economic systems enforced by law during Jim Crow, and a couple having to spend 1/2 an hour finding another, equivalent baker is comical to say the least.

You do know that race is not the only thing listed in Title II of the CRA, right?

You do know that the Civil Rights act included a lot of overreach, right?

Not according to current rulings.

You're free to challenge this "overreach"... So far, PA laws have withstood the challenges.

 

[Skylar]

Wouldn't the more inclusive policy that ALLOWS FREE CHOICE of both ways be the moire universal?

The same way we allow PROCHOICE to be the law because it still allows people to practice prolife and prevent abortion, why can't FREE MARKET be the law because it still allows people the choice to set up their own mandated programs if they want to mandate insurance for their members under that track.

A person can practice pro-life or pro-choice if they want to. What a person can't do is impose their pro-life views on someone else, or force a woman to have an abortion.

And that's the rub. Pro-lifers are trying to use the law to impose their views on an unwilling woman's body. The courts have said they lack the authority. It doesn't matter if the prolifer's 'believe' they have the authority to prevent a woman from having an abortion.

They don't. Mere 'belief' is not the basis of constitutional rights. Or authority.

And as for marriage, wouldn't civil unions and secular contracts be the most inclusive means of covering all cases through the states, and allowing the equal and free exercise of people who believe in either gay marriage, traditional or both on a private level without imposing on anyone's beliefs on a state level.

Save that many states don't recognize civil unions as being the same as marriage. Worse, its pointlessly complicated. There's no reason to invalidate all marriages and all marriage contracts just because a minority wants to keep gays out of the union.

Again, the 'belief' that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry doesn't define the rights gays actually possess. You've put this arbitrary weight on 'belief' as if it settles every issue, or requires changes in our law.

It doesn't. I get that you believe it should be. It still isn't. Your basis of argument is invalid. Individual belief alone does not equal legal authority or constitutionality.

The problem we have is certain beliefs are about govt itself, thus impossible to "separate belief,
s from govt." Since they cannot be separated, then I am saying to either AGREE how to write the laws where they accommodate BOTH beliefs; or else separate by party where they can be implemented on a national level similar to federal, but through separately funded and administrated private programs so nobody's beliefs are imposed on others of the other group.

Generally speaking we do agree on law. Judicial intervention occurs in a tiny, tiny fraction of laws. Sometimes folks disagree. And sometimes their respective positions are not equally valid.

You're beginning from the fallacious assumption that a belief is valid by its mere existence. And that's not the case. The extreme amount of weight you've granted 'belief' isn't reflected in our laws. Nor ever has been.

Your entire basis of argument is again invalid.

1. I was saying they have the right to petition and to defend their beliefs and representation.

And they have it. The right to petition doesn't mean that they're right. And it doesn't mean that their belief is valid.

In fact, if all groups, dissenters and their objections are heard, this PREVENTS any one belief from being imposed because the other objections/dissension will be taken into account to check and balance that.

No it doesn't. As 'being heard' isn't the same as 'being agreed with'. The courts can hear your petition...and then conclude its meaningless gibberish and reject it. The ability to petition doesn't guarantee any particular outcome.

So if democratic processes are facilitated correctly, these conflicts are resolved. and abuses are prevented.

Democratic processes can be implemented correctly and people will still disagree. Resolving a conflict doesn't mean that both sides balance the other. There can be winners and there can be losers. As not all positions are equally valid. And invalid positions should lose. Valid positions should win.

And often do.

You should not have to PROVE what you believe about gay marriage or traditional marriage in order to DEFEND your right to practice that in private. It's only when this was pushed in public, that both sides started trying to discredit or demean the other, when they are EQUALLY FAITH BASED, and should be treated as private without having to justify why someone believes in that or not.

Gay marriage isn't about 'practice in private'. But recognition by the respective states of the validity of a marriage. Along with all the rights, protections and obligations that entails.

If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't have one. But those who oppose gay marriage are trying to prevent ANYONE from being able to have one. And that's where they run into problems.

 

[emilynghiem]

How did you possibly not get that?

Her point is that you want tolerance towards gays, do you actually believe in all tolerance? Such as Christian nativity scenes? Or is your tolerance selective?

I'm sorry, public property is . . .

I guess you think the free expression of religion revolves around prodding up religious symbols on public lands. it doesn't, put it on your own property or find someone who has the space. This is applicable to everyone.

OKAY HappyJoy So why can't marriage be treated the same way?
Keep it OUT of public institutions and keep it in private so everyone is treated the same way.

So this would treat gay marriage or traditional marriage the same.
And keep any beliefs about marriage OUT OF the public sector.
Get it?

What? Don't get gay married then. Plus, marriage as far as the government is concerned is not religious, that's between you, your spouse and your church.

HappyJoy
If marriage is not religious, then you can substitute the word civil union or other secular term
and still get what you want then.

You don't have to use the term marriage if it means something religious other people don't agree to.

Like the word God does not have to offend Buddhists who see that it stands for a general concept that is good.
But atheists who argue it means something religious they oppose can argue to remove that reference.

So if people don't agree religiously over a word and what it means, then why not remove it and substitute civil union or
something they AGREE is a secular neutral term.

See, you really can believe whatever you want. However, there is such a thing as a secular marriage and it's been legal for a long, long time. If you choose to believe that every marriage is made with god in mind, you'd be mistaken.

Just like the Catholic church only recognizes Catholic marriages. Unless you're Catholic, who gives a shit what they think?

Hi HappyJoy
I hate to break it to you, but beliefs do not HAVE to involve God to be beliefs.
Otherwise Atheists would not be protected equally as Christians.
Beliefs can be any form or else the govt would be discriminating by protecting only beliefs
that involve god or a recognized religion. People would not be equal under that definition of belief. Sorry.

But this is a SERIOUS problem we are facing today, with political and secular beliefs not being recognized equally!
And look what dissension and disruption it is causing! Dividing the nation, because all people
have their beliefs they hold religiously, whether these are traditional, theist or nontheist, secular or whatever.

The whole point of this exercise is to start recognizing beliefs as equal.
and not discriminating on the basis of creed.

If we don't want govt doing that to us, we can't ask govt to do that to others.

 

[BluesLegend]

The left is intolerant of people who refuse to subscribe to their view of the world. That's how you end up with a liberal run government agency awarding a $135,000 judgment to a lesbian couple because a baker refused to bake them a freaking cake, that is an utterly ridiculous amount. It was intentionally meant to punish and set an example, to destroy the baker's business and the baker personally. That's your so called liberal tolerance for you. I think these liberal scum know where they can go and what they can do when they get there.

What's utterly ridiculous is the ignorance and stupidity of your post.

Conservatives are for the most part intolerant of people who refuse to subscribe to their view of the world, not 'the left.'

It's conservatives who for the most part seek to deny gay Americans equal protection of the law by prohibiting them from accessing marriage law, it's conservatives who for the most part seek to deny women their right to privacy, it's conservatives who for the most part seek to deny minorities their voting rights, and its conservatives who for the most part seek to deny immigrants their due process rights – not 'the left.'

Judgments against those who violate necessary, proper, and Constitutional public accommodations laws are perfectly appropriate and consistent with the law, just compensation for those adversely effected by discrimination in the marketplace, and a just penalty for business owners who willfully violate lawful regulatory policy as authorized by the Commerce Clause, the same just penalties as if employers maintained unsafe working conditions or failed to pay a minimum wage.

Look clown do you have a link to a conservative being awarded $135k because they offended some gay drama queen over a $20 cake? No you don't. Frankly it reeks of the left's 'get mine' attitude.

Do you deny gays are out there now intentionally targeting Christians attempting to entrap them? Hoping for a payday? Celebrating forcing people to abandon their religious beliefs? I dare the left to keep pushing this issue its going to blow up in their face huge.

 

[emilynghiem]

A person can practice pro-life or pro-choice if they want to. What a person can't do is impose their pro-life views on someone else, or force a woman to have an abortion.

And that's the rub. Pro-lifers are trying to use the law to impose their views on an unwilling woman's body. The courts have said they lack the authority. It doesn't matter if the prolifer's 'believe' they have the authority to prevent a woman from having an abortion.

They don't. Mere 'belief' is not the basis of constitutional rights. Or authority.

Yes Skylar
So why are pro-healthers able to impose their beliefs in restricting choices through govt?
Because it saves lives and costs?

Well so would mandating Christianity and spiritual healing save lives, minds, costs, cut crime, etc.
But that must remain a FREE CHOICE, even if it costs someone their life to addiction or suicide
because they didn't get help from Christian healing methods that are known to cure and save such people from death.

So why can't insurance remain a free choice?

The same way you said people can practice prolife and not impose that on other people, why can't right to health care be practiced by those who believe in it, and not impose on other people who believe in free choice?

Good point Skylar please continue what I think is good to talk out in full.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[BluesLegend]

The left is intolerant of people who refuse to subscribe to their view of the world. That's how you end up with a liberal run government agency awarding a $135,000 judgment to a lesbian couple because a baker refused to bake them a freaking cake, that is an utterly ridiculous amount. It was intentionally meant to punish and set an example, to destroy the baker's business and the baker personally. That's your so called liberal tolerance for you. I think these liberal scum know where they can go and what they can do when they get there.

What's utterly ridiculous is the ignorance and stupidity of your post.

Conservatives are for the most part intolerant of people who refuse to subscribe to their view of the world, not 'the left.'

It's conservatives who for the most part seek to deny gay Americans equal protection of the law by prohibiting them from accessing marriage law, it's conservatives who for the most part seek to deny women their right to privacy, it's conservatives who for the most part seek to deny minorities their voting rights, and its conservatives who for the most part seek to deny immigrants their due process rights – not 'the left.'

Judgments against those who violate necessary, proper, and Constitutional public accommodations laws are perfectly appropriate and consistent with the law, just compensation for those adversely effected by discrimination in the marketplace, and a just penalty for business owners who willfully violate lawful regulatory policy as authorized by the Commerce Clause, the same just penalties as if employers maintained unsafe working conditions or failed to pay a minimum wage.

Your words:

What's utterly ridiculous is the ignorance and stupidity of your post.

The irony impaired far left drones are at it again.

The clown couldn't even come up with something original he had to steal from my post, which is typical of some on the left.

 

[HappyJoy]

The left is intolerant of people who refuse to subscribe to their view of the world. That's how you end up with a liberal run government agency awarding a $135,000 judgment to a lesbian couple because a baker refused to bake them a freaking cake, that is an utterly ridiculous amount. It was intentionally meant to punish and set an example, to destroy the baker's business and the baker personally. That's your so called liberal tolerance for you. I think these liberal scum know where they can go and what they can do when they get there.

What's utterly ridiculous is the ignorance and stupidity of your post.

Conservatives are for the most part intolerant of people who refuse to subscribe to their view of the world, not 'the left.'

It's conservatives who for the most part seek to deny gay Americans equal protection of the law by prohibiting them from accessing marriage law, it's conservatives who for the most part seek to deny women their right to privacy, it's conservatives who for the most part seek to deny minorities their voting rights, and its conservatives who for the most part seek to deny immigrants their due process rights – not 'the left.'

Judgments against those who violate necessary, proper, and Constitutional public accommodations laws are perfectly appropriate and consistent with the law, just compensation for those adversely effected by discrimination in the marketplace, and a just penalty for business owners who willfully violate lawful regulatory policy as authorized by the Commerce Clause, the same just penalties as if employers maintained unsafe working conditions or failed to pay a minimum wage.

Your words:

What's utterly ridiculous is the ignorance and stupidity of your post.

The irony impaired far left drones are at it again.

Neat, calling people

How did you possibly not get that?

Her point is that you want tolerance towards gays, do you actually believe in all tolerance? Such as Christian nativity scenes? Or is your tolerance selective?

I'm sorry, public property is . . .

I guess you think the free expression of religion revolves around prodding up religious symbols on public lands. it doesn't, put it on your own property or find someone who has the space. This is applicable to everyone.

OKAY HappyJoy So why can't marriage be treated the same way?
Keep it OUT of public institutions and keep it in private so everyone is treated the same way.

So this would treat gay marriage or traditional marriage the same.
And keep any beliefs about marriage OUT OF the public sector.
Get it?

What? Don't get gay married then. Plus, marriage as far as the government is concerned is not religious, that's between you, your spouse and your church.

HappyJoy
If marriage is not religious, then you can substitute the word civil union or other secular term
and still get what you want then.

You don't have to use the term marriage if it means something religious other people don't agree to.

Like the word God does not have to offend Buddhists who see that it stands for a general concept that is good.
But atheists who argue it means something religious they oppose can argue to remove that reference.

So if people don't agree religiously over a word and what it means, then why not remove it and substitute civil union or
something they AGREE is a secular neutral term.

See, you really can believe whatever you want. However, there is such a thing as a secular marriage and it's been legal for a long, long time. If you choose to believe that every marriage is made with god in mind, you'd be mistaken.

Just like the Catholic church only recognizes Catholic marriages. Unless you're Catholic, who gives a shit what they think?

Hi HappyJoy
I hate to break it to you, but beliefs do not HAVE to involve God to be beliefs.
Otherwise Atheists would not be protected equally as Christians.
Beliefs can be any form or else the govt would be discriminating by protecting only beliefs
that involve god or a recognized religion. People would not be equal under that definition of belief. Sorry.

But this is a SERIOUS problem we are facing today, with political and secular beliefs not being recognized equally!
And look what dissension and disruption it is causing! Dividing the nation, because all people
have their beliefs they hold religiously, whether these are traditional, theist or nontheist, secular or whatever.

The whole point of this exercise is to start recognizing beliefs as equal.
and not discriminating on the basis of creed.

If we don't want govt doing that to us, we can't ask govt to do that to others.

You're throwing around "beliefs" as though somehow I'm supposed to stop in my tracks because you said something wonderful. What if someone has the belief that only churches can perform a wedding? You'd tell them tough shit, right? Cuz the atheists and stuff.

Same with gay marriage. If you personally don't believe in gay marriage, don't get gay married. How fucking difficult is that for you? Nobody is breaking the Constitution, we've been through much worse so called constitutional crises than gay marriage. I wouldn't even classify this as such. It's fine, we'll live, people will be responsible for their own marriages and there is absolutely no reason for you to find consensus in some else's business, butt out.

 

[Syriusly]

2. or if people AGREE to have marriage through the state open to all, including homosexual couples, also AGREEING to allow free expressions of Christmas, God and Jesus, prayers and Bibles, crosses and Nativity scenes, creation taught in schools and allowed in public institutions as references (as long as these are NOT forced on people in any abusive way, and the same with not forcing homosexuality on people but allowing people of these beliefs to express them freely as what Christians ask for Christianity).]

Why do you insist on equating 'gay marriage' with 'nativity scenes"?

How did you possibly not get that?

Her point is that you want tolerance towards gays, do you actually believe in all tolerance? Such as Christian nativity scenes? Or is your tolerance selective?

I am fine with Christian nativity scenes- as long as they are not on public property.

Frankly I think no Christian should want them on public property because if you allow any group to do so- you open the door for the gay nativity scene and the satanic nativity scene and the KKK nativity scene.

Yes- I believe in 'tolerence'- that the government should not be telling gays or straights, Christians or Atheists, how they should believe.

I think if the government is in the business of marrying people then they should marry people whether they are Christians or Jews, straight or gay.

And again- nativity scenes- and all government endorsed displays of religious content have nothing to do with marriage equality for same gender couples.

??? Syriusly
Are you saying that allowing free speech on the internet
should be "banned in all cases" because it opens the door to abusing internet for child porn, fraud, etc?

Shouldn't just the cases of abuse be banned and not all expressions?

No- I am not.

Are you saying that allowing gay people to marry means that Christians should be allowed to marry ponies?

Or should we address my actual post rather than hysterical fictionalized speculation?