NY Gay Marriage Baggage

[epicfish]

Again somebody who does not read their bible.

St.John 1:1 In the begining was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

All I am doing is proving the the bible does not endorse gay marriage. I do not claim to be God. When you make statments like that it make you look ignorant.

all you're doing is flapping your gums; you've proven nothing

Listen I have shown you in the Bible where God does not endorse homosexualtiy. I do not advocate violence toward homosexuals nor do I hate them. But they can not say that the bible supports their lifestyle. It does not. So yes I have proven the bible takes a dim view toward homosexuals. That was no great stretch to do anyway. Everyone knows what the bible says about it. Its been reapeated many times over.

Your mad because you cant take the bible and prove me wrong. I am sorry but the bible does not support the current feel good everybody is okay mood. If you are gay and you do not repent you will go to hell. Its that simple. I do not want anyone to go to hell but I will not let anyone say that the bible supports their lifestyle when it plainly does not.

Do you also support the killing of disobedient children, the murder of wiccans, slavery and putting women in their place or are you just another tired cafeteria christian, simply following the trends of his or her time?

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

What's not available to gay or same-sex couples is CIVIL MARRIAGE, not religious marriage, as many gay friendly or should I say non-hateful churches and institutions have been more than willing to ratify gay marriages for ages.

What we have here is mainly Christians imposing their religious beliefs on everyone else in what should be a secular nation, that should not kowtow to majority rule when it comes to basic human rights.

 

[Polk]

My thoughts on this:

Civil unions are a legal construct; any two people should be able to form one (and no this is not advocacy for polygamy and people having relationships with animals). Contractually combining assets and liabilities, and having standing regarding in critical care situations should be legally recognized.

Marriage is a private matter, and the government should stay out of it, which also includes not using the tax code to socially engineer, reward, or punish relationships (if marriage is so important, why do we continue to have a marriage penalty).

Agree on the first part (but if we go that route, everyone should have civil unions), but the notion that there is a "marriage penalty" is absurd.

Then you don't know much about how taxes are calculated.

Married couples don't get to take as large of a deduction, but they receive a lot of benefits in return for that. The net effect is a wash.

 

[Polk]

Yes.

As you stated, the Law is Proposed, it is not yet Law, it is also subject to Judicial Review. It can still go one way or the other.

It's a stupid provision. Why should religious bodies have special rights?

That's your opinion, and a stumbling block to Gay Marriage Rights. I see nothing ethical in forcing you or anyone to act against your belief. You on the other hand cannot see you imposing your will on others as an imposition. What do you do when you find yourself on the wrong side of the flip??? Do the Rights of a Minority automatically forfeit because you don't get your way??? No. You get over it, pick yourself up and carry on. What goes on in other peoples heads, is beyond your jurisdiction, just like what goes on in your head is beyond mine. Get over it. A Law for Everything and everything for a law is Bullshit, and unenforceable.

What belief am I imposing on others by saying churches shouldn't be given special exemptions from anti-discrimination laws? Churches can chose to marry or not marry anyone they want as long as they are private bodies. At the point at which they offer their facilities for public rental though, they should have to abide by the same rules as everyone else.

 

[manifold]

Actually if you check, I think they were awarded attorney's fees for their action based on the photographer breaking the law. Still a dollar fine against the photographer who broke the law, but it was not a profit for the couple it was reimbursement of expenses.


>>>>

Still doesn't make it right. And the lesbian couple are still assholes.

Between this and the cupcake case we've learned one thing once and for all: It's perfectly fine to discriminate against queers so long as you lie about it. Just say you're booked up and they can't do shit about it.

Dang Uppity Gay Women...thinking they've got equal rights in the marketplace....Grrrrrr!

Nothing equal about being able to force someone to do something against their will.

 

[Polk]

Still doesn't make it right. And the lesbian couple are still assholes.

Between this and the cupcake case we've learned one thing once and for all: It's perfectly fine to discriminate against queers so long as you lie about it. Just say you're booked up and they can't do shit about it.

Dang Uppity Gay Women...thinking they've got equal rights in the marketplace....Grrrrrr!

Nothing equal about being able to force someone to do something against their will.

I guess you'd have no problem with a shop that placed a "No N----rs Allowed" sign in their window either, would you?

 

[manifold]

Dang Uppity Gay Women...thinking they've got equal rights in the marketplace....Grrrrrr!

Nothing equal about being able to force someone to do something against their will.

I guess you'd have no problem with a shop that placed a "No N----rs Allowed" sign in their window either, would you?

Depends on what you mean by "problem". I'd find it objectionable enough to never patronize the establishment if that's what you mean.

 

[Polk]

Nothing equal about being able to force someone to do something against their will.

I guess you'd have no problem with a shop that placed a "No N----rs Allowed" sign in their window either, would you?

Depends on what you mean by "problem". I'd find it objectionable enough to never patronize the establishment if that's what you mean.

You consider that acceptable behavior.

 

[manifold]

I guess you'd have no problem with a shop that placed a "No N----rs Allowed" sign in their window either, would you?

Depends on what you mean by "problem". I'd find it objectionable enough to never patronize the establishment if that's what you mean.

You consider that acceptable behavior.

Define acceptable.

 

[epicfish]

It's a stupid provision. Why should religious bodies have special rights?

That's your opinion, and a stumbling block to Gay Marriage Rights. I see nothing ethical in forcing you or anyone to act against your belief. You on the other hand cannot see you imposing your will on others as an imposition. What do you do when you find yourself on the wrong side of the flip??? Do the Rights of a Minority automatically forfeit because you don't get your way??? No. You get over it, pick yourself up and carry on. What goes on in other peoples heads, is beyond your jurisdiction, just like what goes on in your head is beyond mine. Get over it. A Law for Everything and everything for a law is Bullshit, and unenforceable.

What belief am I imposing on others by saying churches shouldn't be given special exemptions from anti-discrimination laws? Churches can chose to marry or not marry anyone they want as long as they are private bodies. At the point at which they offer their facilities for public rental though, they should have to abide by the same rules as everyone else.

I very much agree with this. It's just not fair that my own tax dollars go towards funding religious-based discrimination. Churches need to play ball by the rules, if they wish to be in the public field.

 

[Polk]

Depends on what you mean by "problem". I'd find it objectionable enough to never patronize the establishment if that's what you mean.

You consider that acceptable behavior.

Define acceptable.

Check the dictionary.

ac·cept·a·ble   
[ak-sep-tuh-buhl]
–adjective

1. capable or worthy of being accepted.
2. pleasing to the receiver; satisfactory; agreeable; welcome

Acceptable | Define Acceptable at Dictionary.com

 

[Intense]

It's a stupid provision. Why should religious bodies have special rights?

That's your opinion, and a stumbling block to Gay Marriage Rights. I see nothing ethical in forcing you or anyone to act against your belief. You on the other hand cannot see you imposing your will on others as an imposition. What do you do when you find yourself on the wrong side of the flip??? Do the Rights of a Minority automatically forfeit because you don't get your way??? No. You get over it, pick yourself up and carry on. What goes on in other peoples heads, is beyond your jurisdiction, just like what goes on in your head is beyond mine. Get over it. A Law for Everything and everything for a law is Bullshit, and unenforceable.

What belief am I imposing on others by saying churches shouldn't be given special exemptions from anti-discrimination laws? Churches can chose to marry or not marry anyone they want as long as they are private bodies. At the point at which they offer their facilities for public rental though, they should have to abide by the same rules as everyone else.

According to who??? Who sets the standards??? The Exemptions??? The Special Privilege??? Arbitrary Government Dictate. Remove the Hypocrisy from your own mind. Government is not God, neither does it sometimes know Justice before tripping over it. Get over yourself Polk.
Here you are advocating Gay Marriage, at the same time advocating Religious Institutions to Facilitate them under force of Law, with no regard for Spiritual, Moral, or Ethical teachings or understandings, substituted by your own babble. Again you fail at Separation of Church and State. I am shocked. .... Nah.....

Understand that my position is neither Anti Gay Marriage, nor Anti Gay Church Ceremony, provided you find a facility on your own which will freely provide and accommodate, which is not that big of a deal. You rather, while complaining of Religious Values, seek to piss on those values, stomp on them, and then substitute your own, as if you are on a higher spiritual plane. Forcing people or institutions to act against their will, for imposing your own brand of bullshit, on someone else, to satisfy your own need to rule over others. Sounds to me like you are guilty of a Hypocrisy all your own. That stance will probably be why Gay Marriage Law will be delayed. People like you, not being satisfied with the Right to do something, hell bent on forcing your beliefs on the rest of us through mandate. Do you Who do even have a clue as to whom you discriminate against?

 

[manifold]

You consider that acceptable behavior.

Define acceptable.

Check the dictionary.

ac·cept·a·ble   
[ak-sep-tuh-buhl]
–adjective

1. capable or worthy of being accepted.
2. pleasing to the receiver; satisfactory; agreeable; welcome

Acceptable | Define Acceptable at Dictionary.com

Ok, by that definition no, I do not consider it acceptable behavior.

I also don't consider abortion acceptable behavior.

I also don't consider prostitution acceptable behavior.

I also don't consider excessive gambling acceptable behavior.

I also don't consider excessive drug use acceptable behavior.

AND, I also don't support making or keeping any of these illegal.

Same goes for bigotry.

 

[Sheldon]

Personally I would absolutely approve if a smack-addicted hooker had her partial-birth abortion done on the floor of the Bellagio while putting her mortgage straight up on black 13, and I think anyone who disapproves of this is just an uptight douchewad.

 

[Polk]

If you don't consider it acceptable behavior, why do you support it?

 

[martybegan]

Actually if you check, I think they were awarded attorney's fees for their action based on the photographer breaking the law. Still a dollar fine against the photographer who broke the law, but it was not a profit for the couple it was reimbursement of expenses.


>>>>

Still doesn't make it right. And the lesbian couple are still assholes.

Between this and the cupcake case we've learned one thing once and for all: It's perfectly fine to discriminate against queers so long as you lie about it. Just say you're booked up and they can't do shit about it.

Dang Uppity Gay Women...thinking they've got equal rights in the marketplace....Grrrrrr!

Why would you want a photographer at your wedding that doesnt agree that it should be a wedding in the first place? It is not like they have no other options for a photographer. The sued person was also up front with thier position, thus saving the "aggrived" couple time wasted on going to contract. There was no business relationship.

The line that was my favorite (quoted in my post above) was how "hurt" the person felt. You know what? tough shit. There is no consitutional right to not being hurt. Man(or woman) up, take your business somewhere else. Hell even boycott the photographer. Suing them over this crap is a sign of how pussifed our society has become. "Aw, they hurt my feewings, they must pay!!!)

Asshats.

 

[manifold]

If you don't consider it acceptable behavior, why do you support it?

I never said I supported it. You made that part up in your head.

 

[Polk]

If you don't consider it acceptable behavior, why do you support it?

I never said I supported it. You made that part up in your head.

Sure you did. You said you wouldn't do it, but that you have no problem watching other people do it.

 

[martybegan]

Define acceptable.

Check the dictionary.

ac·cept·a·ble   
[ak-sep-tuh-buhl]
–adjective

1. capable or worthy of being accepted.
2. pleasing to the receiver; satisfactory; agreeable; welcome

Acceptable | Define Acceptable at Dictionary.com

Ok, by that definition no, I do not consider it acceptable behavior.

I also don't consider abortion acceptable behavior.

I also don't consider prostitution acceptable behavior.

I also don't consider excessive gambling acceptable behavior.

I also don't consider excessive drug use acceptable behavior.

AND, I also don't support making or keeping any of these illegal.

Same goes for bigotry.

Agreed accept for the prostitution part, fat sarcastic star trek fans like myself have to get laid somehow.....

I also like the use of "excessive" on the drugs and gambling, and i agree. moderation is fine. betting $1000 on the fucking superbowl coin toss is a bit much.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why does anyone want the state involved in marriage in the first place? Get the government out of marriage completely and problem solved.

The state gets involved so it can charge a fee and legitimise some level of wasted paper.

This makes no sense, states write the marriage laws:

Marriage is chiefly regulated by the states. The Supreme Court has held that states are permitted to reasonably regulate the institution by prescribing who is allowed to marry and how the marriage can be dissolved.

Marriage | LII / Legal Information Institute

The argument against polygamy will get much weaker if same sex unions/marriage become widespread law.

Incorrect. Laws banning polygamy are Constitutional because they apply to everyone equally. If laws banning polygamy applied only to Asians, for example, that would be unconstitutional and subject to challenge. And the same applies to ‘regular’ marriage, where same-sex couples are singled out and excluded. That’s an Equal Protection violation.

Basically, yes. Under New Mexico law if you provided services to the public on a commercial basis you fell under the "Public Accommodation" law.

(Not saying I agree with the law - personally I think a private business should be able to discriminate against whomever they want whether it be based on race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, veteran's status, marital status, parental status, or if you decide you want to dress like a pirate and say 'Aarrrgggg matey!" with certain exception in the even of life threatening medical emergencies. "Public Accommodations" should only apply to government entities and restrictions on the government in doing business with businesses that discriminate - other that that private business should be on their own.

See: Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S.(1964):

Did Congress, in passing Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, exceed its Commerce Clause powers by depriving motels, such as the Heart of Atlanta, of the right to choose their own customers?

The Court held that the Commerce Clause allowed Congress to regulate local incidents of commerce, and that the Civil Right Act of 1964 passed constitutional muster. The Court noted that the applicability of Title II was "carefully limited to enterprises having a direct and substantial relation to the interstate flow of goods and people. . ." The Court thus concluded that places of public accommodation had no "right" to select guests as they saw fit, free from governmental regulation.

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. U.S. | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

 

[manifold]

If you don't consider it acceptable behavior, why do you support it?

I never said I supported it. You made that part up in your head.

Sure you did. You said you wouldn't do it, but that you have no problem watching other people do it.

I didn't say that either.

That's the third time now that you've tried to twist my words to say what you thought you heard. Why not just listen better next time?