bendog
Diamond Member
If you don't believe, you must follow the law regardless, or face the consequences. It's not complicated.and yet those kids aren't trying to take away the right of heterosexual parents to marry.
Seawytch you and everyone ALREADY has the right to marry whoever you want in whatever way you want under the RELIGION, CHURCH or PRIVATE practice/beliefs of your own.
That's already under the First Amendment religious freedom.
What is contested is how to word the STATE marriage laws to be neutral, and neither
excluding nor imposing anyone's beliefs unequally.
if you use the word MARRIAGE in a way that is offensive or against Christian beliefs,
that is like using the word GOD in a public institution that is offensive or against an Atheist.
Atheists sue to remove the word GOD, so to be fair, either side can sue to remove the word MARRIAGE
under terms that exclude or discriminate against people of other beliefs.
The problem, Seawytch is when either side GOES TOO FAR and tries to force THEIR beliefs
through the State at the expense or exclusion of the other.
if you believe in "separation of church and state" and "freedom of or from religion"
then NEITHER side should be pushing their beliefs into state laws and institutions.
Either keep the laws neutral and inclusive and equally open to all beliefs
or keep that institution OUT of state law if it can't be worded and agreed upon by people of all beliefs.
Be fair or get it out of govt, just like any other personal choice.
Seawytch if you don't want to include all public beliefs in public policy,
if you want to keep a free choice of BELIEFS protected, then keep it under free exercise of religion
which is already protected.
if you push too far and push YOUR beliefs about same-sex marriage into the public sector and public policy,
that's why people of OTHER beliefs will fight to do the same thing to protect THEIR beliefs.
well said. the intolerance of the left is well established. If you don't believe as they say you must, then you are to be destroyed.
Yes PaintMyHouse
1. And slavery treated slaves as property, where you could not take them away to be freed elsewhere,
or it was enforceable by law as theft of property.
2. And with prolife and prochoice issues, the law does not allow abortion to be banned based on religious beliefs and faith-based arguments NOR can people be forced to fund or support it against their beliefs. And the same is argued for gay marriage, that this is a personal belief that not all people share or choose to support. Because beliefs are involved, on both sides, marriage must remain a free choice and not mandated by the state against the beliefs of any of the public.
3. If the Left wants to keep contradicting the concept of "separation of church and state" by continuing to push political beliefs through law that violate and exclude the beliefs of others (whether pushing the right to health care but discriminating against the right to life or pushing beliefs in gay marriage over traditional marriage),
this may finally expose the "prochoice" movement as not being about choice but pushing political agenda.
Just because beliefs are secular doesn't make them any more privileged as a belief over those of others.
What gave prochoice the advantage in legal arguments over prolife is that prochoice was less restrictive and allowed prolife to be exercised WITHOUT having to fund anything prochoice.
With the ACA mandates (and these gay marriage laws that have already begun affecting wedding businesses and services) this is abusing govt to force people to change their beliefs, endorse and fund things against their beliefs, and even PUNISH business people for their beliefs against gay marriage and PENALIZE citizens for not complying with govt regulations on health care that not all people believe in as lawful.
With abortion, people had a choice not to provide them.
So if this continues, this could lead to destroying prochoice and "separation of church and state" arguments of the Left by proving the party members, leaders and policies contradict themselves, and are "discriminating by creed."
If the Left will not listen and correct their own arguments and policies,
maybe the parties should be sued for fraud, misrepresentation and breaches of contract.
I think you overstate it a bit. Public accommodation laws are one thing. I do not wish to discriminate against anyone for any reason, but honestly I cannot see that the govt has the power to make a bigot sell fried chicken to a black person. A majority found, I think, that the behavior was so corrosive to society, it had to be banned. I'm not shedding tears for Lester Maddux. I think those who don't want to trade with gays are equally bigots, but their beliefs are sincerely based on their religion. So, I'm not for aiding them, and I'm certainly not for letting them discriminate without being up front about what they're doing, but taking them to court and fining them or whatever ..... imo that's a bad idea. In short, I think people do have a constitutional right to discriminate. Or, more accurately, I don't see that the govt has the power to prevent their private actions.
Yes, the justification for the Hyde Amend is an understanding of the constitution that both religious conservatives (Henry Hyde) and sectarian progressives (Pat Schroeder) agreed that people should not be compelled to pay for abortion if it was against their personal or religious beliefs.
But taking it to the ACA is beyond strained. All of us who pay taxes and have private insurance end up paying more than we would if we weren't forced to subsidize care for those without insurance. All the ACA does is say "get insurance or pay the taxpayers back for what it costs to provide you free insurance."