Federal appeals court rules religious businesses can refuse same-sex weddings

[HappyJoy]

Who is advocating or wanting to live in a purely Socialist country? Nobody, so why did you bring up another fantasy land?

The same people advocating or wanting to live in a purely Libertarian country...nobody.

Touché.

Ok, let's get more specific. What other country's PA and civil rights laws do you approve of that isn't' a total mess?

Or, what time period in the United States do you think worked without these laws?

Can't say that I know too much about the PA and civil rights laws. What i do know is that none of them have our Constitution, which is very specific in its purpose, to limit the power of the government...not the freedom of the people

General welfare is pretty general and the courts have back them up. As I've said before, the ship has sailed.

However if you want to tell me when the United States had it right at some point in time I'd be interesting in hearing it.

I believe the US is a work in progress, always changing and growing. I do not look to the past for how things should be, I look to the future to how things could be.

In the meantime people need to find a place to work, conduct commerce, raise families and eat.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The same people advocating or wanting to live in a purely Libertarian country...nobody.

Touché.

Ok, let's get more specific. What other country's PA and civil rights laws do you approve of that isn't' a total mess?

Or, what time period in the United States do you think worked without these laws?

Can't say that I know too much about the PA and civil rights laws. What i do know is that none of them have our Constitution, which is very specific in its purpose, to limit the power of the government...not the freedom of the people

General welfare is pretty general and the courts have back them up. As I've said before, the ship has sailed.

However if you want to tell me when the United States had it right at some point in time I'd be interesting in hearing it.

I believe the US is a work in progress, always changing and growing. I do not look to the past for how things should be, I look to the future to how things could be.

In the meantime people need to find a place to work, conduct commerce, raise families and eat.

Which is happening at record pace right now, unemployment across the board is pretty darn low.

 

[pknopp]

The same people advocating or wanting to live in a purely Libertarian country...nobody.

Touché.

Ok, let's get more specific. What other country's PA and civil rights laws do you approve of that isn't' a total mess?

Or, what time period in the United States do you think worked without these laws?

Can't say that I know too much about the PA and civil rights laws. What i do know is that none of them have our Constitution, which is very specific in its purpose, to limit the power of the government...not the freedom of the people

General welfare is pretty general and the courts have back them up. As I've said before, the ship has sailed.

However if you want to tell me when the United States had it right at some point in time I'd be interesting in hearing it.

I believe the US is a work in progress, always changing and growing. I do not look to the past for how things should be, I look to the future to how things could be.

In the meantime people need to find a place to work, conduct commerce, raise families and eat.

Despite what one reads on a board like this, there are only a small number of jerks.

 

[dblack]

Libertarianism isn't change, it's actually wanting to repeal laws meant to sustain civil rights.

Repealing laws is change. Repealing bad laws is positive change.

A Libertarian world would be full of racism run amok run by robber barons.

Libertarianism doesn't prescribe a ”world". That's at the core of the philosophy. We believe that government should protect our freedom to create the kind of society we want. It's not there to tell us how to live.

 

[HappyJoy]

Touché.

Ok, let's get more specific. What other country's PA and civil rights laws do you approve of that isn't' a total mess?

Or, what time period in the United States do you think worked without these laws?

Can't say that I know too much about the PA and civil rights laws. What i do know is that none of them have our Constitution, which is very specific in its purpose, to limit the power of the government...not the freedom of the people

General welfare is pretty general and the courts have back them up. As I've said before, the ship has sailed.

However if you want to tell me when the United States had it right at some point in time I'd be interesting in hearing it.

I believe the US is a work in progress, always changing and growing. I do not look to the past for how things should be, I look to the future to how things could be.

In the meantime people need to find a place to work, conduct commerce, raise families and eat.

Which is happening at record pace right now, unemployment across the board is pretty darn low.

Neat. I already provided you a link to a study about hiring preferences and race. Are you actually saying it's all cool now because bodies are needed? What about a year, 2 or 3 down the line? This is another naive point you are trying to make.

 

[HappyJoy]

Touché.

Ok, let's get more specific. What other country's PA and civil rights laws do you approve of that isn't' a total mess?

Or, what time period in the United States do you think worked without these laws?

Can't say that I know too much about the PA and civil rights laws. What i do know is that none of them have our Constitution, which is very specific in its purpose, to limit the power of the government...not the freedom of the people

General welfare is pretty general and the courts have back them up. As I've said before, the ship has sailed.

However if you want to tell me when the United States had it right at some point in time I'd be interesting in hearing it.

I believe the US is a work in progress, always changing and growing. I do not look to the past for how things should be, I look to the future to how things could be.

In the meantime people need to find a place to work, conduct commerce, raise families and eat.

Despite what one reads on a board like this, there are only a small number of jerks.

Yet there is still evidence of racial discrimination in hiring.

 

[HappyJoy]

Libertarianism isn't change, it's actually wanting to repeal laws meant to sustain civil rights.

Repealing laws is change. Repealing bad laws is positive change.

The laws were created for a very real reason. Evidence for the need is still there as I've posted earlier. To repeal the laws would be going backwards.

A Libertarian world would be full of racism run amok run by robber barons.

Libertarianism doesn't prescribe a ”world". That's at the core of the philosophy. We believe that government should protect our freedom to create the kind of society we want. It's not there to tell us how to live.

Who is we? Who is going to ensure that a minority can get a bank loan without paying high interest rates due to a lack of options?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Neat. I already provided you a link to a study about hiring preferences and race. Are you actually saying it's all cool now because bodies are needed? What about a year, 2 or 3 down the line? This is another naive point you are trying to make.

UCLA study suggests researchers look more closely at connections between names and race

What if they used redneck sounding names like Bobby Joe or Dixie Rose? Chances are they would find the same biases.

 

[pknopp]

Can't say that I know too much about the PA and civil rights laws. What i do know is that none of them have our Constitution, which is very specific in its purpose, to limit the power of the government...not the freedom of the people

General welfare is pretty general and the courts have back them up. As I've said before, the ship has sailed.

However if you want to tell me when the United States had it right at some point in time I'd be interesting in hearing it.

I believe the US is a work in progress, always changing and growing. I do not look to the past for how things should be, I look to the future to how things could be.

In the meantime people need to find a place to work, conduct commerce, raise families and eat.

Despite what one reads on a board like this, there are only a small number of jerks.

Yet there is still evidence of racial discrimination in hiring.

There is.

 

[WEATHER53]

So another unsatisfied emotions tirade forthcoming from liberals
Bring back Mules to investigate for 2.5 years.

 

[dblack]

Repealing laws is change. Repealing bad laws is positive change.

The laws were created for a very real reason. Evidence for the need is still there as I've posted earlier. To repeal the laws would be going backwards.

That's conjecture. I think you're wrong.

Libertarianism doesn't prescribe a ”world". That's at the core of the philosophy. We believe that government should protect our freedom to create the kind of society we want. It's not there to tell us how to live.

Who is we?

We is society. Not just the majority of voters, but everyone who takes part.

Who is going to ensure that a minority can get a bank loan without paying high interest rates due to a lack of options?

Whoever wants to. But who gets loans, and who doesn't, shouldn't be the government's decision.

 

[HappyJoy]

Neat. I already provided you a link to a study about hiring preferences and race. Are you actually saying it's all cool now because bodies are needed? What about a year, 2 or 3 down the line? This is another naive point you are trying to make.

UCLA study suggests researchers look more closely at connections between names and race

What if they used redneck sounding names like Bobby Joe or Dixie Rose? Chances are they would find the same biases.

The studies using name are based on census data where as DeShawn is a common black name, Cleter...not so much.

 

[OKTexas]

And gay couples will continue to marry. This will simply open up new business for others.

As it should be, let the market decide, not government.

.

 

[HappyJoy]

Repealing laws is change. Repealing bad laws is positive change.

The laws were created for a very real reason. Evidence for the need is still there as I've posted earlier. To repeal the laws would be going backwards.

That's conjecture. I think you're wrong.

Conjecture is a two way street. I've posted evidence to my point.

Libertarianism doesn't prescribe a ”world". That's at the core of the philosophy. We believe that government should protect our freedom to create the kind of society we want. It's not there to tell us how to live.

Who is we?

We is society. Not just the majority of voters, but everyone who takes part.

Who is going to ensure that a minority can get a bank loan without paying high interest rates due to a lack of options?

Whoever wants to. But who gets loans, and who doesn't, shouldn't be the government's decision.

Society as a whole mostly has rejected libertarianism. Sure, some aspect may be popular such as marijuana legalization though I don't think libertarians own that idea out right. In the great market of ideas libertarians have a failed party and are teetering out of the GOP.

I do think every Libertarian who runs for office should be absolutely vocal about repealing civil rights legislation and getting rid of our social safety net as many would like to see happen.

Then again, who knows what you guys believe, you play the no true scotsman shit with each other all the time.

 

[dblack]

Repealing laws is change. Repealing bad laws is positive change.

The laws were created for a very real reason. Evidence for the need is still there as I've posted earlier. To repeal the laws would be going backwards.

That's conjecture. I think you're wrong.

Conjecture is a two way street. I've posted evidence to my point.

Libertarianism doesn't prescribe a ”world". That's at the core of the philosophy. We believe that government should protect our freedom to create the kind of society we want. It's not there to tell us how to live.

Who is we?

We is society. Not just the majority of voters, but everyone who takes part.

Who is going to ensure that a minority can get a bank loan without paying high interest rates due to a lack of options?

Whoever wants to. But who gets loans, and who doesn't, shouldn't be the government's decision.

Society as a whole mostly has rejected libertarianism. Sure, some aspect may be popular such as marijuana legalization though I don't think libertarians own that idea out right. In the great market of ideas libertarians have a failed party and are teetering out of the GOP.

Giving up? I see you've resorted to the, ”Well, it ain't ever going" harrumphing. Of course that says nothing about whether it should, whether it's right or wrong, whether we should try to make it happen.

 

[danielpalos]

Fine..and leave Christians alone... anyone with a lick of sense sees the homos are targeting

You constant complainers never specify which Christians. Your fault. I've known plenty of LGBTs who are themselves Christian. One even taught Sunday School.

Constant complainers? You do realize you loons have been complaining for three fricken years...dumbass.

The "Christian" fundies have been complaining for decades and think that the whole nation should stop to cater to their demands. This is entirely unrealistic. Nobody is going to change their behavior to suit the beliefs of total strangers. I don't think that you stop what you're doing to accommodate anyone else's beliefs. Put down that pork chop and pray to Yahweh, G-d, and Allah.

Only the Religious should invoke Religion not the laity.

I don't think that there is any difference between the two. Moreover, the term "religious" could be applied to anyone who adheres to any of the world's faiths, which, themselves, seem to be divided into all sorts of groups that do nothing but squabble with each other. Just last week, the Catholics and the Protestants had a nice little riot in Glasgow, Scotland, complete with police in riot gear, police on horseback, helicopters, the works. Shi'a, Sunni, and Wahabi Muslims similarly have love fests, and the Israeli cops have occasionally had great times with ultra-orthodox Jewish sects.

Anyone who believes that their particular sect deserves a blank check from larger society is completely out of his or her mind.

usually, i have seen that reference for the Religious Orders not the laity.

 

[HappyJoy]

Repealing laws is change. Repealing bad laws is positive change.

The laws were created for a very real reason. Evidence for the need is still there as I've posted earlier. To repeal the laws would be going backwards.

That's conjecture. I think you're wrong.

Conjecture is a two way street. I've posted evidence to my point.

Libertarianism doesn't prescribe a ”world". That's at the core of the philosophy. We believe that government should protect our freedom to create the kind of society we want. It's not there to tell us how to live.

Who is we?

We is society. Not just the majority of voters, but everyone who takes part.

Who is going to ensure that a minority can get a bank loan without paying high interest rates due to a lack of options?

Whoever wants to. But who gets loans, and who doesn't, shouldn't be the government's decision.

Society as a whole mostly has rejected libertarianism. Sure, some aspect may be popular such as marijuana legalization though I don't think libertarians own that idea out right. In the great market of ideas libertarians have a failed party and are teetering out of the GOP.

Giving up? I see you've resorted to the, ”Well, it ain't ever going" harrumphing. Of course that says nothing about whether it should, whether it's right or wrong, whether we should try to make it happen.

Nobody wants to live in a libertarian style government, the masses have not been converted. Nobody said anything about giving up but you're not going anywhere until you make something of your party that doesn't resemble a joke with joke candidates.

In a way libertarians remind me of people who only vote third party. Their candidate is never going to win and they aren't putting any effort into changing that either. Bragging about voting for a losing candidate every 4 years and not doing anything in between is just people who like to complain and not be a substantive part of anything having to do with shaping the future of the country.

 

[Coyote]

And gay couples will continue to marry. This will simply open up new business for others.

Fine..and leave Christians alone... anyone with a lick of sense sees the homos are targeting

You constant complainers never specify which Christians. Your fault. I've known plenty of LGBTs who are themselves Christian. One even taught Sunday School.

Constant complainers? You do realize you loons have been complaining for three fricken years...dumbass.

The "Christian" fundies have been complaining for decades and think that the whole nation should stop to cater to their demands. This is entirely unrealistic. Nobody is going to change their behavior to suit the beliefs of total strangers. I don't think that you stop what you're doing to accommodate anyone else's beliefs. Put down that pork chop and pray to Yahweh, G-d, and Allah.

Something to think about though.

The Christian community in America has long felt marginalized and disrespected, especially disrespected.

This has culminated into a surge of support for Trump, and his electoral victory. He is no Christian, at least by his behavior, but he has tapped into that anger and given them a voice. We, the left, have only ourselves to blame.

A little respect, the ability to listen, and to compromise can go a long way towards healing some of these divisions.

When you talk about catering to demands, you are using the same language they use against the gay community.

Same sex marriage is here to stay, itis a right, and frankly has zero effect on anyone other than the married couple. So leave them alone. Homosexuality is by no means the worst “sin” in Christian theology but it certainly gets a disproportionate amount of hate. So much so that followers ignore some Jesus’ messages in the process.

But, should Christians be forced to provide services to same sex weddings if they feel a strong religious conviction?

I am on the fence. I tend to see a slippery slope here because so-called religious freedom is being used as a pretext to refuse pretty important services in the pharmacies and medicine. When does it become a pretext for bigotry.

On the other hand, how far can you go in forcing some to act against their convictions? Where is the happy medium?

IMO, having a sign that says “we are a Christian Bakery and serve Christian weddings, we would be happy to refer you to other bakeries” is reasonable. No one should go to a place expecting to be served like anyone else, only to be refused, that is far too much like the old “no blacks” or Irish or other restrictions.

 

[Lysistrata]

You constant complainers never specify which Christians. Your fault. I've known plenty of LGBTs who are themselves Christian. One even taught Sunday School.

Constant complainers? You do realize you loons have been complaining for three fricken years...dumbass.

The "Christian" fundies have been complaining for decades and think that the whole nation should stop to cater to their demands. This is entirely unrealistic. Nobody is going to change their behavior to suit the beliefs of total strangers. I don't think that you stop what you're doing to accommodate anyone else's beliefs. Put down that pork chop and pray to Yahweh, G-d, and Allah.

Only the Religious should invoke Religion not the laity.

I don't think that there is any difference between the two. Moreover, the term "religious" could be applied to anyone who adheres to any of the world's faiths, which, themselves, seem to be divided into all sorts of groups that do nothing but squabble with each other. Just last week, the Catholics and the Protestants had a nice little riot in Glasgow, Scotland, complete with police in riot gear, police on horseback, helicopters, the works. Shi'a, Sunni, and Wahabi Muslims similarly have love fests, and the Israeli cops have occasionally had great times with ultra-orthodox Jewish sects.

Anyone who believes that their particular sect deserves a blank check from larger society is completely out of his or her mind.

usually, i have seen that reference for the Religious Orders not the laity.

I guess I just didn't understand what you meant by "invoke" then. Most of these people who assert that they have the right to refuse to obey a law have not been members of religious orders.

 

[Coyote]

They need to put a sign in the window. Bet they won't.

No they don't dumbass. It's Constitutional.

Freedom OF religion. Go ahead and start a business catering to 3% of the population. I'll give you 6 months tops

I believe they have a right if they want to turn away customers. I'm saying they should place the notice in the window so they don't have to bothered doing so.

I bet they won't.

I see what you're trying, ....no colored allowed.

You're a simpleton and easily revealed

Again it's Constitutional...deny it and if you do prove it

I think if classes of people are not going to be served in an establishment they have a right to know ahead of time.

Well make a law stating that and we'll get that overturns as well

What do you have against? Don’t people have a right to know before they go?