Discrimination and the New Inclusive America: Bake me a cake or go to Jail!

[Edgetho]

Edge writes, Stupidly, "What we're objecting to is gays demanding that we create a right, THAT HAS NEVER EXISTED, out of whole cloth and pretending that two gay men are just as 'married' as a Man and a Woman."

One, there has been same sex marriage in the past, and, two, if the law says same-sex are married like heteroseuxals are married, then, yeah, Edge, that are "as just as 'married' as a Man and a Woman."

Sux to b you, doesn't it?

Point out Countries that have institutionalized gay marriage before this Century (don't waste your time, there aren't any)

It's a new phenomenon. Completely new to the conscience of Americans. And the World

Completely new.

And oh, since you believe so strongly in the Constitution You better consider the possibility of a Constitutional Amendment.

That can happen. That can seriously happen.

Keep pissing people off and it WILL happen

 

[JakeStarkey]

"The BELIEFS about homosexuality (on both sides of debates) are EQUALLY FAITH BASED."

No, they are not.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You said such marriages did not occur before. Edgetho, that is a lie, and caught on it, you are shifting your argument so, no you do not get "just once more."

There is no need for an amendment, and don't worry, your side will never get one.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Here is Edgetho being counseled on easter egg hunting before eating the non-gay cake.

 

[koshergrl]

????

Dear JakeStarkey can you explain why INCLUDING both sides of religious debates EQUALLY
when making a law that affects BOTH their beliefs is NOT OBJECTIVE?

Let me answer that, if I may.

Because the Constitution prohibits the government from making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, or impeding the free exercise of religion.

Dear orogenicman
I agree! That's what I am SAYING!
by taking one side's beliefs over the other, the govt is establishing a bias based on beliefs that not all the public shares.
EXACTLY!

Excuse me, but being gay is not a belief any more than having Down's syndrome is a belief. The bias is in believing that one has a right to justify discrimination based on one's religion.

Er..it's not a religion either, though honestly, it should be.

Dear koshergrl and orogenicman
1. The BELIEFS about homosexuality (on both sides of debates) are EQUALLY FAITH BASED
2. so regardless what conditions homosexuality represents, which has NEVER been proven,
people can be treated equally under law by focusing on what we believe, and agreeing not to impose
these by law (either way, for any side or any policy), since anything to do with homosexuality is faith based and not proven
(and not agreed upon. Even if it is faith based, if people AGREE then there is no imposition)
3. I do not see how it would be fair to only interpret religion or creed to apply to CERTAIN beliefs and not others.

So orogenicman that is why I am saying the conflict in beliefs is mutual.
Because nothing about homosexuality has been proven by science and agreed upon,
the issues and arguments, beliefs and perceptions all remain faith based. Not necessarily FORMALLY religiously affiliated, but still "based on faith" regardless if that person is secular or religiously affiliated.

If you want people to be treated equally, whether gay or straight, whether secular or religiously affiliated with a group or not,
then people have to accept equal treatment on ALL levels, including treating secular beliefs equally as religious beliefs.

You can't have it both ways.

If Christians can't go around imposing their beliefs when others don't share that same faith,
then neither can secular people with beliefs about homosexuality impose those values when others don't share them either!

And if beliefs about homosexuality get imposed by state laws
OF COURSE it's going to invoke the equal and opposite reaction of people whose religious beliefs are penalized by that!

Because it is violating the very principle it seeks to challenge: and that is not imposing beliefs by law,
especially beliefs that other people don't share. If you expect Christians to keep their beliefs private, and out of public law,
it only makes sense to keep beliefs about homosexuality in private also. If you expect Christians to prove their beliefs are true, where people freely choose to accept based on science and reason, and work with those beliefs by free choice, not by force of law; then the same should be applied to beliefs about homosexuality, and prove it first by science, and/or allow people free choice to accept and work with those beliefs. The same as how Obama had free choice to change his mind about gay marriage WITHOUT anyone passing a law FORCING him to change his mind. Why not let all people have that same freedom?

I've never gone around imposing my religious beliefs on others who don't share the faith.

However, I reserve the right, which is guaranteed to me by our constitution, to ABSTAIN from PARTICIPATING in activites that I VIEW as sacrilegious. My not attending a fake homo wedding is in no way *imposing my beliefs* upon anybody. Imposing my belief on someone would be FORCING them to attend and endorse an activity they find repugnant for any reason.

 

[Edgetho]

You said such marriages did not occur before. That is a lie, and caught on it, you are shifting your argument so, no you do not get "just once more."

There is no need for an amendment, and don't worry, your side will never get one.

No, I didn't say there never any same sex Marriages before. I am fully aware of Nero and his lunacies and of Egyptian scrolls that seem to chronicle it.

What I'm saying is that until this Millennium, they have not been recognized by any State Actors

Same-sex marriage - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Denmark was the first state to recognize a legal relationship for same-sex couples, establishing "registered partnerships" as gay marriage in 1989.[61] In 2001, the Netherlands[nb 2] became the first nation in the world to grant same-sex marriages.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Yes, as you probably know, in the threads on this issue, liberals here have danced and ducked and dodged around the simple, self-evident point that they are the ones seeking to impose their values on others.

If the religious vendor gets his way and is free to decline to host or serve a gay wedding, the gay couple can still get married and is perfectly free to simply get another vendor, which they can quickly and easily do--and they have not been compelled to do something that violates their religious beliefs.

But if the gay couple is able to force the religious vendor--via threat of lawsuit or a judge's ruling--to host or service their wedding, they have compelled him to facilitate a ceremony that he finds spiritually and morally offensive. If the gay couple gets another vendor but also gets some "civil rights commission" or judge to punish the religious vendor for declining to host or service their wedding, they have punished the vendor for his religious beliefs even though he denied them no basic rights and even though they had no trouble at all finding another vendor.

 

[emilynghiem]

Anyone saying gays have not had a difficult time are nothing more than winking assholes.

Who's saying gays haven't had a rough time? Lots of people have a rough time every day of their lives.

So what? Life's a *****, doncha know...

What we're objecting to is gays demanding that we create a right, THAT HAS NEVER EXISTED, out of whole cloth and pretending that two gay men are just as 'married' as a Man and a Woman.

They're not.

They may want to spend their lives together, they may want to enjoy the same freedoms and perquisites as a Married Man and a Married Woman but they don't automatically get to demand that we create this right our of thin air when IT HAS NEVER EXISTED IN THE HISTORY OF MAN.

There has got to be a better way of accomplishing what they want as opposed to the way they're doing it now, which is just plain, old-fashioned bullying.

You/they are making yourselves VERY unpopular.

Very.

Better to try a little love and kindness as opposed to hatefulness, vitriol, viciousness and hate.

Because that's what you're doing by going after good people who don't know shit from apple butter about these things..... Like backwoods Pizzerias in BumFuck Indiana.

Otherwise, I'm telling you..... You're going to pay for your hubris. And the price you pay may be higher than you want to imagine.

You have no clue. You really don't

Dear Edgetho and JakeStarkey
Just because Buddhism and Christianity are both equally protected under religious freedom
does not make these the same.

Seeking to make Buddhism equal to Christianity by passing laws about that
would be a mistake.

The point is not to discriminate against one or the other, but to respect religious freedom equally.

Likewise with gay marriage, there is nothing to stop this practice from being conducted in private.

Christians do not need to publicly recognize Buddhists as equal to Christians, by law, in order to protect Buddhists. That should already be protected under religious freedom. Same with gay marriage that should already be protected as a practice under religious freedom* (*see Notes. Where there have conflicting laws trying to ban gay marriages even in private, that is unconstitutional and going too far.)

If there is rejection or discrimination going on between Buddhists and Christians, that is a private matter and process for people to work through and should not require Govt stepping in and MAKING laws FORCING one to accept the other equally! Those are not the same, and DON'T need to be declared to the public as equal, in order to enjoy equal protection under religious freedom.

Clearly there are cultural issues with people rejecting gays or people rejecting Christians.
If this isn't worked out in private, it is spilling out into the public realm.

You don't see Buddhists and Christians trying to sue each other for discrimination, they leave each other alone.
---------------
Note: The areas I have seen discrimination goes too far
A. If states ban gay marriages from taking place in churches, that's a private matter of free exercise of religion
and can't be banned
B. If laws protect gays from discrimination but not businesses from that law being abused to harass or target them with lawsuits; or if laws protect businesses from lawsuits but not gays from that law being abused to target or discriminate against them
C. And in general if people don't agree on terms of marriage, then the laws should be written to be neutral, or else remove them from state jurisdiction and keep marriage private and have civil unions and contracts for all couples. If people insist on making marriage through the state "mandatory to include same sex couples" then the opponents could equally add a clause making it "mandatory for all couples to go through spiritual healing and counseling to determine they are spiritual partners" before being approved for marriage. If that religious condition doesn't belong with the state, then neither does the belief that marriage should include same sex couples if that belief isn't shared by all people either! because marriage is a personal or spiritual relationship it really doesn't belong in state jurisdiction. It was only there because people generally agreed with it. But if they don't then the religious differences and conflicts should disqualify marriage from being under the state, and go back to being a private choice (and just keep secular civil unions and contracts with neutral language in the state).

 

[Katzndogz]

There are many vendors that specifically advertise to gays with targeted marketing. Why do gays reject these merchants? An lbgt might question a dozen or more vendors until they find one to reject them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You said such marriages did not occur before. That is a lie, and caught on it, you are shifting your argument so, no you do not get "just once more."

There is no need for an amendment, and don't worry, your side will never get one.

No, I didn't say there never any same sex Marriages before. I am fully aware of Nero and his lunacies and of Egyptian scrolls that seem to chronicle it.

What I'm saying is that until this Millennium, they have not been recognized by any State Actors

Same-sex marriage - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Denmark was the first state to recognize a legal relationship for same-sex couples, establishing "registered partnerships" as gay marriage in 1989.[61] In 2001, the Netherlands[nb 2] became the first nation in the world to grant same-sex marriages.

You are deflecting.

No, you don't get "just once more" on that.

Your ilk will never have an amendment that you want on the issue.

 

[emilynghiem]

The comparison of

jakestarkey: "The reality is that the widespread discrimination against gays because of their sexual orientation is simply not there" is the inaccurate statement of the day so far.

with

Emily: "Likewise JakeStarkey it is in denial to ignore the "widespread discrimination" against cultural traditions associated with Christianity, if not demonization. From Christmas trees, to saying "Merry Christmas" or praying as a group."

To suggest the saying of Merry Christmas or Christmas trees or Christians praying together as the equivalent of discrimination against gays is to mistake both difference of kind and difference of degree.

You make Reason stare with such a statement, Emily.

Hi JakeStarkey
A. I was comparing trying to BAN or REMOVE or REJECT the "Christmas Culture" (versus INCLUDING it in cultural diversity)
with trying to BAN or REMOVE or REJECT "homosexuality or gay marriage
B. and yes, it is SHOCKING isn't it?

That something as harmless as saying "Merry Christmas" or displaying a Christmas tree
is met with DEMANDS for removal, and treated as a HUGE imposition that this must be STOPPED nationwide in all schools.

While something as monumental as changing the definition of marriage
AGAINST the beliefs of people and impose that through state law
is ASSUMED TO BE NECESSARY FOR EQUAL INCLUSION

So YES JakeStarkey it is MINDBOGGLING isn't it?

That something so minor an imposition is DOWNRIGHT REJECTED *because it imposes beliefs*
yet something so MAJOR to impose a religious change in the laws is justified as good to impose?

How is that not imposing beliefs?

Why is the minor imposition of beliefs rejected and required for removal
but the MAJOR imposition of beliefs is seen as necessary and too bad for other beliefs?

You don't get the point?

The Christians with the Christmas tree COULD have argued so what, too bad for other beliefs, this is just a tree
for one month. But the campaign is to REMOVE references to Christmas and Christmas trees, etc. when it's just
a small imposition in comparison.

And when it comes to a HUGE imposition, then it's taken for granted that gay marriage conflicts and overrides
well established religious beliefs, which are suddenly seen as negative and not defensible under religious freedom.

Why wasn't the same argued in the case of Christmas trees?
That removing them would discriminate against people who celebrate that way?
and if you are saying to keep Christmas in private, then why not keep gay marriage in private to prevent imposing on people who don't celebrate that way or share the same beliefs!

Of course these are not the same level of imposition, Jake.
That's what makes it so clearly biased!!!

 

[Edgetho]

You are deflecting.

No, you don't get "just once more" on that.

Your ilk will never have an amendment that you want on the issue.

No.

You are the one deflecting. I said that same sex marriage has never been approved by any State in the history of Man before this Century.

Ever.

You came back and blithered something about me being wrong....

Twice in one day? Impossible.

What I'm trying to tell you is that this is something totally new to people and they don't know what to think about it.

What you are doing is making them think bad things about it. Like, "Submit or be punished."

Which is all scum of the earth dimocraps know -- Force.

The vast majority people don't spend a lot of time thinking about gays. They just don't. At least -- Not like you do... For some unknown reason.

I remember when I was a kid, people just thought Liberace was flamboyant and theatrical.

I remember when Johnny Mathis came out on the Johnny Carson show (one the most talented, under-appreciated singers of all time, IMO)

All of the sudden after 5,000 years of marriage being between a Man and Woman exclusively, you want to ram your beliefs down everybody else's throat....?

Believe the way I do -- Or else.

I really couldn't care less who does what to whom but I'm telling you..... You're pissing people off. You are seriously pissing people off.

And you're going to pay for it one of these days. And I mean REALLY pay.

You better hope and pray to God that society never breaks down for any longer than an hour or two.

oooops. My bad. You don't believe in God. The Big Bang just sort of 'happened'

You people think you're cute.... You're not.

 

[emilynghiem]

You said such marriages did not occur before. That is a lie, and caught on it, you are shifting your argument so, no you do not get "just once more."

There is no need for an amendment, and don't worry, your side will never get one.

No, I didn't say there never any same sex Marriages before. I am fully aware of Nero and his lunacies and of Egyptian scrolls that seem to chronicle it.

What I'm saying is that until this Millennium, they have not been recognized by any State Actors

Same-sex marriage - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Denmark was the first state to recognize a legal relationship for same-sex couples, establishing "registered partnerships" as gay marriage in 1989.[61] In 2001, the Netherlands[nb 2] became the first nation in the world to grant same-sex marriages.

You are deflecting.

No, you don't get "just once more" on that.

Your ilk will never have an amendment that you want on the issue.

Disagree JakeStarkey
the First and Fourteenth Amendments already exist.

We just don't agree yet that secular beliefs and creeds should be treated the same way as organized religions.

which is quite ironic, Jake.

Given that advocates are fighting to include and respect gay marriage to the same degree as traditional marriage,
and people are saying they will never be equal (but I am saying they can already be exercised equally in private)

And now YOU are saying that you will keep sticking to religion only preventing organized religions from being established by law, and don't apply the same restrictions to SECULAR beliefs.

JakeStarkey
Maybe the day you start treating traditional religions and secular beliefs with the same restrictions and protections,
you might see people treating traditional marriage and gay marriage with the same respect for religious freedom.

You can't have it both ways.

If you want your beliefs about homosexuality and gay marriage to be respected,
the same rules apply to those beliefs as any other religious beliefs!

You can't expect to be treated and included equally if you don't treat beliefs equally.

 

[Theowl32]

This is not about gays (everyone hates them, even the hypocrites who feign outrage over stupid issue.) This is about dividing classes and whatever else they can in order to gain political advantages.

Their retarded constituency can never see themselves as the moronic political pawns they are.

******* idiots.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Emily, yes, the differences are clear.

Edge, your lengthy diatribe is only that.

TheOwl, this is about civil rights, not classes.

Now that the LGBT front has split their opponents, the end of far right opposition is almost here.

 

[Katzndogz]

It seems more like the far right is getting much stronger. So far there has been no backlash with Christians boycotting gay businesses. That's a step that needs to be taken.

 

[Seawytch]

.

A reasonable person would not force another to to provide a service that is clearly against their will.

No doubt doing so provides some perverse pleasure for some, but it really isn't necessary.

.

Because gays and Muslims can grow their own food and make their own fuel, right?

 

[Mac1958]

.

A reasonable person would not force another to to provide a service that is clearly against their will.

No doubt doing so provides some perverse pleasure for some, but it really isn't necessary.

.

Because gays and Muslims can grow their own food and make their own fuel, right?

Huh?

.

 

[Seawytch]

Oh look - A wall of shit that has nothing to do with the point. They have suffered violence. Never said they did not. So has ANY group in this nation. What they are not experiencing is discriminatory practices that are so extreme that it warrants limiting others rights to combat them. That is what happened with blacks – they could not live equally in this nation without the force of law ensuring it.
Any questions?

Race is not the only protected class...

 

[Seawytch]

.

A reasonable person would not force another to to provide a service that is clearly against their will.

No doubt doing so provides some perverse pleasure for some, but it really isn't necessary.

.

Because gays and Muslims can grow their own food and make their own fuel, right?

Huh?

.

If the only store or gas station in town doesn't want to "provide a service ", what are rural gays and Muslims supposed to do, Mac...since, you know, these laws aren't necessary?