Colorado tries to find middle ground in the gay rights issue

[007]

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....

The OP has perfect middle ground in it.

It's the bigoted hard liner leftist homo lovers that refuse to give in inch. They want to bastardize holy Christian marriage with their devilish, perverted, disgusting sex or nothing.

 

[Ravi]

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?

What was simple about it?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

Gay marriage opponents propose 2 Colorado ballot measures - Washington Times

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

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

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

Good enough? Or is compromise still a dirty word?

.

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

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

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

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

 

[G.T.]

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....

The OP has perfect middle ground in it.

It's the bigoted hard liner leftist homo lovers that refuse to give in inch. They want to bastardize holy Christian marriage with their devilish, perverted, disgusting sex or nothing.

Govt marriage is not holy christian marrage do do brain

 

[Ravi]

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?

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

 

[Ravi]

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....

The OP has perfect middle ground in it.

It's the bigoted hard liner leftist homo lovers that refuse to give in inch. They want to bastardize holy Christian marriage with their devilish, perverted, disgusting sex or nothing.

What about holy Jewish marriage? Muslim? Or do only Christians have a right to marry?

 

[mdk]

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....

The OP has perfect middle ground in it.

It's the bigoted hard liner leftist homo lovers that refuse to give in inch. They want to bastardize holy Christian marriage with their devilish, perverted, disgusting sex or nothing.

Christians don't own marriage in this nation does. No faith does. Besides, you don't need to be a Christian to get married. You would be wise to remember that.

 

[BluesLegend]

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 .

Riiiiight you never propose some twisted fallacy then make shit up to support it. /SARCASM

 

[Syriusly]

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....

The OP has perfect middle ground in it.

It's the bigoted hard liner leftist homo lovers that refuse to give in inch. They want to bastardize holy Christian marriage with their devilish, perverted, disgusting sex or nothing.

LOL- the 'perfect' middle ground- just like Segregationists had the perfect middle ground when they offered up 'Separate but Equal' to African Americans.

Now tell us how your holy Christian marriage is bastardized when Bob and Bill get married by the county clerk?

Did you experience a sudden impotence?

 

[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?

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

I didn't the context you were using, we could be many things. I would know who we was without asking or you explaining.

 

[Papageorgio]

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

Gay marriage opponents propose 2 Colorado ballot measures - Washington Times

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

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

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

Good enough? Or is compromise still a dirty word?

.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[MaryL]

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

Gay marriage opponents propose 2 Colorado ballot measures - Washington Times

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

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

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

Good enough? Or is compromise still a dirty word?

.

Good enough? In a word, no...

Why not?

.

Separate is not equal...

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

 

[PratchettFan]

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

Gay marriage opponents propose 2 Colorado ballot measures - Washington Times

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

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

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

Good enough? Or is compromise still a dirty word?

.

Good enough? In a word, no...

Why not?

.

Separate is not equal...

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

Gays represent a very small percentage of the population. Less than 4%, and that includes the entire LGBT population. Yet they are dominating the debate? 96% of the population are being dominated by 4%? I don't think so. The majority of straights are dominating the debate, and it is a growing majority. And most of those straights in that growing majority are Christian.

 

[Silhouette]

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.
.

Nope. Hiring a contractor to promote homosexual spread throughout the culture isn't going to escape the all-seeing eye of God. Jude 1 and Romans 1 forbid any such thing. You cannot pull a fast one on God even to save your soul.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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

Gay marriage opponents propose 2 Colorado ballot measures - Washington Times

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

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

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

Good enough? Or is compromise still a dirty word?

.

Good enough? In a word, no...

Why not?

.

Separate is not equal...

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

You cannot win, you will not win, you have already lost, and the nation is better for it...

 

[Socialist]

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

Gay marriage opponents propose 2 Colorado ballot measures - Washington Times

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

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

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

Good enough? Or is compromise still a dirty word?

.

Good enough? In a word, no...

Why not?

.

Separate is not equal...

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

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

 

[candycorn]

How about just minding your own business and not worrying about who your neighbor is marrying or seeing?

I do, and I agree with gay marriage.

Did you think you "had" me there?

Wanna try again?

.

No....just stating what I feel should happen.

We've been over this topic a zillion times

 

[SwimExpert]

You force someone to bake you a cake they don't want to make, then you should be forced to warn your wedding guests that they might not want to eat the cake.

 

[Silhouette]

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

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

 

[Syriusly]

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

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

Well you think it is 'rational' to deprive children of gay couples married parents.

Preventing their parents from marrying doesn't magically give them a mother or father.

Of course the next step in your plan is the forced sterilzation of lesbians, and the forcible removal of children from gay households.

Based upon the slippery slope theory you espouse.