Colorado tries to find middle ground in the gay rights issue

[LoneLaugher]

Gays want the legal right to intentionally target Christians and sue them so no there's no middle ground.

Christians want to engage in public commerce while also avoiding anti bigotry public accommodations laws??

Where in the constitution does it state you automatically lose your rights when you try to sell something?

Where is there a right to infringe on a consumer's liberty to engage in commerce..

Also, where does it state that the government, through the commerce clause, cannot create a law diminishing one's ability to discriminate in such ways that deny another their liberty?

You clowns try to pretend gays are looking for common ground with Christians, its laughable. The militant gays are intentionally targeting Christians intending from the start to rub their noses in this, entrap them, leap on them like a pack of wild dogs with law suits, boycotts, and harassment which is exactly what they did to this couple. Its completely one sided with intent to harm and the SCOTUS has opened up a whole can-o-worms that will clog the courts.

For you, Christian.

6 Ways Christians Lost This Week john pavlovitz

 

[LoneLaugher]

And what, pray tell, was the problem with catering a gay wedding? It is a legal event.

The bakery does not have a religious leg to stand on since they don't exclude ALL non-bible compliant catering events.

Still not your call to make, and not government's call to make.

In the real world, it is. Try living in it, for a change.

The only world you want is one where government does your dirty work.

Nope, I want people to STFU and do their goddamned jobs, as well as turn off the damn TV, read a fucking book, make their kids read a fucking book, turn on their heads, have a drink, get laid, lose 20 pounds, and return their goddamned shopping carts, for once.

No, you want government to do that for you. Instead of convincing people, which is the right way to do it.

What would it take to convince you that gay people are just as good as you?

 

[martybegan]

if you wanted an example of the tyranny of petty authority, you picked a perfect one with regards to condo associations.

And they were discriminating against the dog, which I'm not sure is even discrimination.

No- they violated the disabled Veterans legal rights by refusing to accommodate his dog.

You agree of course with the condo association?

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?

 

[martybegan]

Still not your call to make, and not government's call to make.

In the real world, it is. Try living in it, for a change.

The only world you want is one where government does your dirty work.

Nope, I want people to STFU and do their goddamned jobs, as well as turn off the damn TV, read a fucking book, make their kids read a fucking book, turn on their heads, have a drink, get laid, lose 20 pounds, and return their goddamned shopping carts, for once.

No, you want government to do that for you. Instead of convincing people, which is the right way to do it.

What would it take to convince you that gay people are just as good as you?

I don't think gay people are any better or worse than me. My problem is with people like you who think using government to force people to go against their religious beliefs or face ruin over something as trivial as a wedding cake.

I think you guys are twats.

 

[martybegan]

So all those States that passed changes to their Marriage Contract were wrong?

and yes, you do legislate civil rights, or am I missing something with the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

My bad. You can't legislate rights away. Nor can you vote them away as a population. The government can legislate to protect civil rights, even though they shouldn't need to do so.

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?

 

[LoneLaugher]

In the real world, it is. Try living in it, for a change.

The only world you want is one where government does your dirty work.

Nope, I want people to STFU and do their goddamned jobs, as well as turn off the damn TV, read a fucking book, make their kids read a fucking book, turn on their heads, have a drink, get laid, lose 20 pounds, and return their goddamned shopping carts, for once.

No, you want government to do that for you. Instead of convincing people, which is the right way to do it.

What would it take to convince you that gay people are just as good as you?

I don't think gay people are any better or worse than me. My problem is with people like you who think using government to force people to go against their religious beliefs or face ruin over something as trivial as a wedding cake.

I think you guys are twats.

Religious beliefs my ass. You are using that as an excuse. When you admit that, we can start having that "mature, adult discussion" that Mac wants.

 

[bendog]

You cannot legislate civil rights. Why do you not understand that basic concept?

So all those States that passed changes to their Marriage Contract were wrong?

and yes, you do legislate civil rights, or am I missing something with the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

My bad. You can't legislate rights away. Nor can you vote them away as a population. The government can legislate to protect civil rights, even though they shouldn't need to do so.

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.

Marty, I don't see how you can logically argue when opening a private for profit business, someone exercises their right to freedom of religion. And making that logically indefensible argument takes away from the real issue of whether the state should have the power to compel an individual to engage in private commerce with another individual.

When John "maybe Jay" Roberts went through the nomination process, he proclaimed himself a minimalist, which means the Court is loathe to say Congress does not have a power to do something. He wrote a scathing dissent in the gay marriage case making just that point. Unless the Court is minimalist, it becomes a political player. "Conservatives" were displeased with his Obamacare rulings, but they were the only way for the Court to be minimalist and refuse the "temptation" to be an activist court. BUT, he didn't base the Mandate is Legal decision on the commerce clause, which is what is used to justify PA laws.

When we did PA for blacks, it took soul searching, and a lot of Real-conservatives compromised their belief in freedom from govt compulsion because they believed blacks would never be accommodated by bigots and racist states in the South. Outside of Miss, SC, Kan and Alabama, the political winds are not favoring the gay bakers. GLBT folks looking for cakes are simply not lacking willing bakers. You cannot logically deny that the gay bakers are discriminating against gays, and even saying they do so from conscience, lacks any logical consistency because they're happy to bake for fornicators.

However, it's also impossible to say the plaintiffs in Ore and Colo are anything other than activists who demand the bakers accommodate them, even though the damages they claim are laughably absurd and show their real intent: Punish anyone who doesn't conform to gay is OK. There is no real comparison to the injury that black discrimination cause. Why should the govt have the power to force private commercial activity? That should be the conservative argument.

 

[martybegan]

The only world you want is one where government does your dirty work.

Nope, I want people to STFU and do their goddamned jobs, as well as turn off the damn TV, read a fucking book, make their kids read a fucking book, turn on their heads, have a drink, get laid, lose 20 pounds, and return their goddamned shopping carts, for once.

No, you want government to do that for you. Instead of convincing people, which is the right way to do it.

What would it take to convince you that gay people are just as good as you?

I don't think gay people are any better or worse than me. My problem is with people like you who think using government to force people to go against their religious beliefs or face ruin over something as trivial as a wedding cake.

I think you guys are twats.

Religious beliefs my ass. You are using that as an excuse. When you admit that, we can start having that "mature, adult discussion" that Mac wants.

it's not my call to make for those people, and it's not government's unless there is a compelling interest.

 

[martybegan]

So all those States that passed changes to their Marriage Contract were wrong?

and yes, you do legislate civil rights, or am I missing something with the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

My bad. You can't legislate rights away. Nor can you vote them away as a population. The government can legislate to protect civil rights, even though they shouldn't need to do so.

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.

Marty, I don't see how you can logically argue when opening a private for profit business, someone exercises their right to freedom of religion. And making that logically indefensible argument takes away from the real issue of whether the state should have the power to compel an individual to engage in private commerce with another individual.

When John "maybe Jay" Roberts went through the nomination process, he proclaimed himself a minimalist, which means the Court is loathe to say Congress does not have a power to do something. He wrote a scathing dissent in the gay marriage case making just that point. Unless the Court is minimalist, it becomes a political player. "Conservatives" were displeased with his Obamacare rulings, but they were the only way for the Court to be minimalist and refuse the "temptation" to be an activist court. BUT, he didn't base the Mandate is Legal decision on the commerce clause, which is what is used to justify PA laws.

When we did PA for blacks, it took soul searching, and a lot of Real-conservatives compromised their belief in freedom from govt compulsion because they believed blacks would never be accommodated by bigots and racist states in the South. Outside of Miss, SC, Kan and Alabama, the political winds are not favoring the gay bakers. GLBT folks looking for cakes are simply not lacking willing bakers. You cannot logically deny that the gay bakers are discriminating against gays, and even saying they do so from conscience, lacks any logical consistency because they're happy to bake for fornicators.

However, it's also impossible to say the plaintiffs in Ore and Colo are anything other than activists who demand the bakers accommodate them, even though the damages they claim are laughably absurd and show their real intent: Punish anyone who doesn't conform to gay is OK. There is no real comparison to the injury that black discrimination cause. Why should the govt have the power to force private commercial activity? That should be the conservative argument.

The south required the use of PA laws because of the systemic nature of the discrimination, and the fact it was government mandated. To get rid of a government screw up requires government action. Also, if you read the Federal Civil Rights Act, PA's are not "Every business out there" but specific things, like restaurants, gas stations, food counters, movie theaters, things like that.

The government has a compelling interest in some cases to make people do what they don't want to do. That isn't an issue. A gas station should have to do point of sale, a travel motel should have to give a room to a traveler, a grocer should have to sell basic food items. To remove those protections causes actual harm, not feelings harm, not I disagree with you harm.

 

[bendog]

My bad. You can't legislate rights away. Nor can you vote them away as a population. The government can legislate to protect civil rights, even though they shouldn't need to do so.

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.

Marty, I don't see how you can logically argue when opening a private for profit business, someone exercises their right to freedom of religion. And making that logically indefensible argument takes away from the real issue of whether the state should have the power to compel an individual to engage in private commerce with another individual.

When John "maybe Jay" Roberts went through the nomination process, he proclaimed himself a minimalist, which means the Court is loathe to say Congress does not have a power to do something. He wrote a scathing dissent in the gay marriage case making just that point. Unless the Court is minimalist, it becomes a political player. "Conservatives" were displeased with his Obamacare rulings, but they were the only way for the Court to be minimalist and refuse the "temptation" to be an activist court. BUT, he didn't base the Mandate is Legal decision on the commerce clause, which is what is used to justify PA laws.

When we did PA for blacks, it took soul searching, and a lot of Real-conservatives compromised their belief in freedom from govt compulsion because they believed blacks would never be accommodated by bigots and racist states in the South. Outside of Miss, SC, Kan and Alabama, the political winds are not favoring the gay bakers. GLBT folks looking for cakes are simply not lacking willing bakers. You cannot logically deny that the gay bakers are discriminating against gays, and even saying they do so from conscience, lacks any logical consistency because they're happy to bake for fornicators.

However, it's also impossible to say the plaintiffs in Ore and Colo are anything other than activists who demand the bakers accommodate them, even though the damages they claim are laughably absurd and show their real intent: Punish anyone who doesn't conform to gay is OK. There is no real comparison to the injury that black discrimination cause. Why should the govt have the power to force private commercial activity? That should be the conservative argument.

The south required the use of PA laws because of the systemic nature of the discrimination, and the fact it was government mandated. To get rid of a government screw up requires government action. Also, if you read the Federal Civil Rights Act, PA's are not "Every business out there" but specific things, like restaurants, gas stations, food counters, movie theaters, things like that.

The government has a compelling interest in some cases to make people do what they don't want to do. That isn't an issue. A gas station should have to do point of sale, a travel motel should have to give a room to a traveler, a grocer should have to sell basic food items. To remove those protections causes actual harm, not feelings harm, not I disagree with you harm.

I think I agree with you that if a person can show he won't get a hotel room, or as good a hotel room, or the same price others are offered, then the state arguably should be able to compel private action. But, I don't see GLBT folks really making that argument.

Outside the outlier nutty states. And I live in one, and it is nutty.

 

[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.

Marty, I don't see how you can logically argue when opening a private for profit business, someone exercises their right to freedom of religion. And making that logically indefensible argument takes away from the real issue of whether the state should have the power to compel an individual to engage in private commerce with another individual.

When John "maybe Jay" Roberts went through the nomination process, he proclaimed himself a minimalist, which means the Court is loathe to say Congress does not have a power to do something. He wrote a scathing dissent in the gay marriage case making just that point. Unless the Court is minimalist, it becomes a political player. "Conservatives" were displeased with his Obamacare rulings, but they were the only way for the Court to be minimalist and refuse the "temptation" to be an activist court. BUT, he didn't base the Mandate is Legal decision on the commerce clause, which is what is used to justify PA laws.

When we did PA for blacks, it took soul searching, and a lot of Real-conservatives compromised their belief in freedom from govt compulsion because they believed blacks would never be accommodated by bigots and racist states in the South. Outside of Miss, SC, Kan and Alabama, the political winds are not favoring the gay bakers. GLBT folks looking for cakes are simply not lacking willing bakers. You cannot logically deny that the gay bakers are discriminating against gays, and even saying they do so from conscience, lacks any logical consistency because they're happy to bake for fornicators.

However, it's also impossible to say the plaintiffs in Ore and Colo are anything other than activists who demand the bakers accommodate them, even though the damages they claim are laughably absurd and show their real intent: Punish anyone who doesn't conform to gay is OK. There is no real comparison to the injury that black discrimination cause. Why should the govt have the power to force private commercial activity? That should be the conservative argument.

The south required the use of PA laws because of the systemic nature of the discrimination, and the fact it was government mandated. To get rid of a government screw up requires government action. Also, if you read the Federal Civil Rights Act, PA's are not "Every business out there" but specific things, like restaurants, gas stations, food counters, movie theaters, things like that.

The government has a compelling interest in some cases to make people do what they don't want to do. That isn't an issue. A gas station should have to do point of sale, a travel motel should have to give a room to a traveler, a grocer should have to sell basic food items. To remove those protections causes actual harm, not feelings harm, not I disagree with you harm.

I think I agree with you that if a person can show he won't get a hotel room, or as good a hotel room, or the same price others are offered, then the state arguably should be able to compel private action. But, I don't see GLBT folks really making that argument.

Outside the outlier nutty states. And I live in one, and it is nutty.

its a question of 1) necessity and 2) timeliness. Some things can't be held back without threatening life, or at a minimum creating an onerous burden on some normal everyday transaction needed for quality of life.

Now in the case of a hotel, the hotel shouldn't be forced to host a gay wedding if its owners don't want to, but they shouldn't be able to deny lodging, particular transient travel related lodging, because of the harm caused by being denied a room late a night or after a long amount of travel.

 

[Papageorgio]

One sided?

Christians actually had the LAW on their discriminatory view's side......now that that vile bigotry as mandated by law is over?

GOOD.

So gays are looking for revenge and payback? It seems to me gays have been free to be gays for decades and the sky hasn't fallen. Why all the drama.

There would be zero drama if nobody, as it should be, gave a fuck if gays wanted to marry.

Meh, I don't care if they get married. That government is conspiring with militant gays to target a Christian business and trying to intentionally destroy that business and the owners hell yes I have a problem with that.

Can you list the things that you believe a so-called Christian business should NOT be allowed to do in the name of their religion,

regarding business practices?

Pull your head out of your ass. A reasonable fine or damage award for not baking a cake might be $1,000. That has some sting to it and seems appropriate. $135,000 damage award for not making a cake is utterly ridiculous.

I think 10,000 to 20,000 seems okay. I think $135,000 is excessive. Drug dealers don't get those kind of fines.

 

[daws101]

Your rights,be you black, white ,green, gay,or have three eyes,stop at my rights

and yours at theirs.
why is it cons always forget that?

Hardly,who is reaching ? do you agree my rights are just as valid as yours,and most likely different?

we have the same rights, you just want your version to supersede everyone else's
yes, you are reaching.

 

[Papageorgio]

Your rights,be you black, white ,green, gay,or have three eyes,stop at my rights

and yours at theirs.
why is it cons always forget that?

Hardly,who is reaching ? do you agree my rights are just as valid as yours,and most likely different?

we have the same rights, you just want your version to supersede everyone else's
yes, you are reaching.

Who is we?

 

[daws101]

Takin a guess but I am betting you think someonse religious beliefs take a back seat?

if you are doing business with the public they do.
and that's someone ..

 

[daws101]

Contracting out is perfectly legal.

Sub-contracting is a perfect example of the type of reaction I predict from Christians. If gays continue to try to pick a fight with Christians this is an example of what's going to happen. The left frequently thinks people will just stand there and take it when they attack them, they won't.

Perfectly legal as long as the opinion is put in the work order. It is done by businesses all the time. It's legal and who cares if someone calls it middle ground or not.

That will piss off gays imo. Which gets us to the root of the issue, do they really just want a cake or do they want to pick a fight with a Christian.

as I said before it's not gay vs. Christian ,it's" gay" vs. "straight" Christian.
why is it you won't man up and say gays can't be Christian or some shit like that?
it's obvious that's what you are trying so hard to suggest.

Gays can worship Jesus, or a pet rock for all I care you are making up shit again.

gay vs. Christian ,it's" gay" vs. "straight" Christian.
I was not making shit up before .

 

[daws101]

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?

.

Well, Marriage IS the Joining of One Man and One Woman.

not any more .. you are beginning to show signs of insanity like repeating the same thing over and over aging and expecting it to turn out different

 

[daws101]

Your rights,be you black, white ,green, gay,or have three eyes,stop at my rights

and yours at theirs.
why is it cons always forget that?

Hardly,who is reaching ? do you agree my rights are just as valid as yours,and most likely different?

we have the same rights, you just want your version to supersede everyone else's
yes, you are reaching.

Who is we?

unlike yourself I know who we is ..that is everybody who is a citizen of the usa we all have the same rights ..

 

[daws101]

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....

 

[LoneLaugher]

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.