First amendment hating Governor tells Christians to deal with homosexual hatred

[martybegan]

Then why get government involved?

Because we are at that point with LGBT... Read before you respond

No, evidently the mob can handle it, just look at Memories Pizza.

Obviously it does or there wouldn't be cases that these bakers, florists and photographers keep losing.

They keep losing to bureaucrats and local progressive judges. It's not really losing when the deck is stacked against you.

Nice stab at victimhood...and you might have been successful if not for the fact that conservative judges are ruling against the bigots too.

Links please.

 

[martybegan]

They keep losing to bureaucrats and local progressive judges. It's not really losing when the deck is stacked against you.

1. Public Accommodation laws are not written by bureaucrats, as in government persons performing a job, they are written by legislatures.

2. So you now support judicial activism that a judge should rule against a planly written law.

3. Public Accommodation laws are not ultimately decided by the judicial infrastructure. Take the Elane Photography case. It was initially decided by a local Judge, however that decision was appealed to the State Appellate Court (non-local), they lost. That decision was appealed to the State Supreme Court (non-local). They lost. That decision was then appealed to the United States Supreme Court (non-local). They lost because the SCOTUS allowed the State Supreme Court to remain.


>>>>

1) The first round of adjudicating these cases usually falls to some Human rights commission, which usually has a few political appointees and hordes of bean counters.

2) A lower court judge can find in favor of 1st amendment rights, and let the higher courts sort it out. How much higher court precedent is there on these matters? And in this specific case of non economic harm?

3) The SC decided not to hear it, so you know that the merits weren't debated. They are probably waiting for something with more meat to hear. Of course with Scalia gone, who knows what will happen if a case does reach the court.

 

[guno]

For things where there is no economic harm, why should the government care? And again, these places did not deny sale on a walk up basis to these couples, they did not want to provide a contracted service in relation to a gay wedding, something they find offensive.

The only thing that occurs in this case is hurt feelings, and hurt feelings is not worthy of government intervention to ruin someone over.

That's a matter of opinion. The only way you end Homophobia is to ruin a few people.

Just like the way we ended racism is to make sure the guy who screams the N-word out loud pays a hefty price for it.

But in the case of the Kleins, they INVITED the Cryer-Bowman's to their shop to get this specific service, and then changed their minds after inflicting some homophobic verbal abuse. Just not going to get worked up over it.

You don't want to serve gays, then close up your business.

There are always going to be people who think homosexuality is wrong, unless of course you get rid of religion, which we know is one of your pet douchebag projects.

I don't see why a small group of people gets to decide how others get to live their lives when there is no actual harm done to the small group of people.

No one is saying you cannot live your life nor believe what you want, you can bow to statues, grovel to a cross , pray and go to your tax free churches , read chicken entrails , eat crackerjacks that you think turn into a man, wear magical underwear etc. You don't have the right to demand laws based on your beliefs

 

[martybegan]

For things where there is no economic harm, why should the government care? And again, these places did not deny sale on a walk up basis to these couples, they did not want to provide a contracted service in relation to a gay wedding, something they find offensive.

The only thing that occurs in this case is hurt feelings, and hurt feelings is not worthy of government intervention to ruin someone over.

That's a matter of opinion. The only way you end Homophobia is to ruin a few people.

Just like the way we ended racism is to make sure the guy who screams the N-word out loud pays a hefty price for it.

But in the case of the Kleins, they INVITED the Cryer-Bowman's to their shop to get this specific service, and then changed their minds after inflicting some homophobic verbal abuse. Just not going to get worked up over it.

You don't want to serve gays, then close up your business.

There are always going to be people who think homosexuality is wrong, unless of course you get rid of religion, which we know is one of your pet douchebag projects.

I don't see why a small group of people gets to decide how others get to live their lives when there is no actual harm done to the small group of people.

No one is saying you cannot live your life nor believe what you want, you can bow to statues, grovel to a cross , pray and go to your tax free churches , read chicken entrails , eat crackerjacks that you think turn into a man, wear magical underwear etc. You don't have the right to demand laws based on your beliefs

But why does someone else have the right to make you go against your beliefs simply for hurt feelings, where there is no actual harm done?

I'm almost wondering why I am giving a cheap dime store hack such as yourself an actual response.

Your bigotry is noted.

 

[Slade3200]

A business wouldn't want to go that route now because the people would revolt and shut it down. Back in the early 1900's thats how things were and there was only change because laws were made. We are at that point now with LGBT.

Then why get government involved?

Because we are at that point with LGBT... Read before you respond

No, evidently the mob can handle it, just look at Memories Pizza.

Obviously it does or there wouldn't be cases that these bakers, florists and photographers keep losing.

They keep losing to bureaucrats and local progressive judges. It's not really losing when the deck is stacked against you.

It's called the majority of people. Yes the deck is stacked against you because you are In The vast minority

 

[martybegan]

Then why get government involved?

Because we are at that point with LGBT... Read before you respond

No, evidently the mob can handle it, just look at Memories Pizza.

Obviously it does or there wouldn't be cases that these bakers, florists and photographers keep losing.

They keep losing to bureaucrats and local progressive judges. It's not really losing when the deck is stacked against you.

It's called the majority of people. Yes the deck is stacked against you because you are In The vast minority

You have numbers to back that up? Most people want others to get along, but ask them if government force should be involved and you lose a lot of people.

And with polls, it all goes by how you ask the question.

 

[Slade3200]

Because we are at that point with LGBT... Read before you respond

No, evidently the mob can handle it, just look at Memories Pizza.

Obviously it does or there wouldn't be cases that these bakers, florists and photographers keep losing.

They keep losing to bureaucrats and local progressive judges. It's not really losing when the deck is stacked against you.

It's called the majority of people. Yes the deck is stacked against you because you are In The vast minority

You have numbers to back that up? Most people want others to get along, but ask them if government force should be involved and you lose a lot of people.

And with polls, it all goes by how you ask the question.

I agree with you that the less government interference in business the better. But I also understand that sometimes the government needs to step in to stand up for those who are being discriminated against. They did it for blacks, then women, and now LGBT. You mentioned before that your wife is Indian and you wouldn't care if you were denied service. That might be true if it was a single case, but if the nation showed the same prejudice against Indians as they do LGBT I'd hope you take a harder stance standing up for their rights. If our people and businesses can show progress, responsibility, and fair treatment then the government can back off. In the meantime, examples will be made.

 

[martybegan]

No, evidently the mob can handle it, just look at Memories Pizza.

Obviously it does or there wouldn't be cases that these bakers, florists and photographers keep losing.

They keep losing to bureaucrats and local progressive judges. It's not really losing when the deck is stacked against you.

It's called the majority of people. Yes the deck is stacked against you because you are In The vast minority

You have numbers to back that up? Most people want others to get along, but ask them if government force should be involved and you lose a lot of people.

And with polls, it all goes by how you ask the question.

I agree with you that the less government interference in business the better. But I also understand that sometimes the government needs to step in to stand up for those who are being discriminated against. They did it for blacks, then women, and now LGBT. You mentioned before that your wife is Indian and you wouldn't care if you were denied service. That might be true if it was a single case, but if the nation showed the same prejudice against Indians as they do LGBT I'd hope you take a harder stance standing up for their rights. If our people and businesses can show progress, responsibility, and fair treatment then the government can back off. In the meantime, examples will be made.

In the previous cases the real discrimination was economic and political. The discrimination at the counters, and in the buses were symptoms of a far larger problem, which was mandated by governments, both State and more local, and re-enforced by a terrible supreme court decision (Plessey).

The issue I have is that examples are being made of people who are doing no real harm other than hurting another person's feelings, and maybe making them make a few more phone calls or do another google search. The systemic economic and political discrimination that made Jim Crow the force it was it non-existent in this case. Hell, Gays in some studies are shown to be more affluent than your average heterosexual couple, and they have obvious political clout that a black in the 1930's would kill for.

You also are noticing certain States trying to pass crazy laws that even in my view go way too far in allowing people to refuse service. Instead of trying to "live and let live" The activist wing of the LGBT community has decided to go on the offensive. The American people don't really like bullies, and in these cases, the LGBT activists are the ones using the government to squash people they don't like.

 

[Slade3200]

Obviously it does or there wouldn't be cases that these bakers, florists and photographers keep losing.

They keep losing to bureaucrats and local progressive judges. It's not really losing when the deck is stacked against you.

It's called the majority of people. Yes the deck is stacked against you because you are In The vast minority

You have numbers to back that up? Most people want others to get along, but ask them if government force should be involved and you lose a lot of people.

And with polls, it all goes by how you ask the question.

I agree with you that the less government interference in business the better. But I also understand that sometimes the government needs to step in to stand up for those who are being discriminated against. They did it for blacks, then women, and now LGBT. You mentioned before that your wife is Indian and you wouldn't care if you were denied service. That might be true if it was a single case, but if the nation showed the same prejudice against Indians as they do LGBT I'd hope you take a harder stance standing up for their rights. If our people and businesses can show progress, responsibility, and fair treatment then the government can back off. In the meantime, examples will be made.

In the previous cases the real discrimination was economic and political. The discrimination at the counters, and in the buses were symptoms of a far larger problem, which was mandated by governments, both State and more local, and re-enforced by a terrible supreme court decision (Plessey).

The issue I have is that examples are being made of people who are doing no real harm other than hurting another person's feelings, and maybe making them make a few more phone calls or do another google search. The systemic economic and political discrimination that made Jim Crow the force it was it non-existent in this case. Hell, Gays in some studies are shown to be more affluent than your average heterosexual couple, and they have obvious political clout that a black in the 1930's would kill for.

You also are noticing certain States trying to pass crazy laws that even in my view go way too far in allowing people to refuse service. Instead of trying to "live and let live" The activist wing of the LGBT community has decided to go on the offensive. The American people don't really like bullies, and in these cases, the LGBT activists are the ones using the government to squash people they don't like.

I understand where you are coming from but you fail to see that we are in the heart of a larger problem. Right now we are in the middle of LGBT debates about discrimination and marriage rights which effect death rights/benefits, tax implications, adoption rights etc etc etc... This IS an economic and political discussion and goes beyond the bakery counter.

 

[martybegan]

They keep losing to bureaucrats and local progressive judges. It's not really losing when the deck is stacked against you.

It's called the majority of people. Yes the deck is stacked against you because you are In The vast minority

You have numbers to back that up? Most people want others to get along, but ask them if government force should be involved and you lose a lot of people.

And with polls, it all goes by how you ask the question.

I agree with you that the less government interference in business the better. But I also understand that sometimes the government needs to step in to stand up for those who are being discriminated against. They did it for blacks, then women, and now LGBT. You mentioned before that your wife is Indian and you wouldn't care if you were denied service. That might be true if it was a single case, but if the nation showed the same prejudice against Indians as they do LGBT I'd hope you take a harder stance standing up for their rights. If our people and businesses can show progress, responsibility, and fair treatment then the government can back off. In the meantime, examples will be made.

In the previous cases the real discrimination was economic and political. The discrimination at the counters, and in the buses were symptoms of a far larger problem, which was mandated by governments, both State and more local, and re-enforced by a terrible supreme court decision (Plessey).

The issue I have is that examples are being made of people who are doing no real harm other than hurting another person's feelings, and maybe making them make a few more phone calls or do another google search. The systemic economic and political discrimination that made Jim Crow the force it was it non-existent in this case. Hell, Gays in some studies are shown to be more affluent than your average heterosexual couple, and they have obvious political clout that a black in the 1930's would kill for.

You also are noticing certain States trying to pass crazy laws that even in my view go way too far in allowing people to refuse service. Instead of trying to "live and let live" The activist wing of the LGBT community has decided to go on the offensive. The American people don't really like bullies, and in these cases, the LGBT activists are the ones using the government to squash people they don't like.

I understand where you are coming from but you fail to see that we are in the heart of a larger problem. Right now we are in the middle of LGBT debates about discrimination and marriage rights which effect death rights/benefits, tax implications, adoption rights etc etc etc... This IS an economic and political discussion and goes beyond the bakery counter.

Ruining a baker over not wanting to participate in a gay wedding is the wrong way to cement marriage rights. To put it out there, I thought the SC decision was wrong, to me they should have let States set the marriage contract as they see fit, but force the States to recognize any valid marriage certificate from another State. I just don't see where the federal constitution gives the SC the ability to interfere with a State Function in this manner.

I live in NY, and supported the NY legislature in their action to open up the marriage contract to gays, but it has to be done that way, or by referendum, not by court fiat.

Your larger problem really is you want people who think homosexuality is a sin to "shut up." One can make government equal and make sure that systemic discrimination cannot occur without ruining lone hold outs who's only actual crime is hurting someone's feelings.

Government shouldn't get to decide who's butthurt is more equal.

 

[Slade3200]

It's called the majority of people. Yes the deck is stacked against you because you are In The vast minority

You have numbers to back that up? Most people want others to get along, but ask them if government force should be involved and you lose a lot of people.

And with polls, it all goes by how you ask the question.

I agree with you that the less government interference in business the better. But I also understand that sometimes the government needs to step in to stand up for those who are being discriminated against. They did it for blacks, then women, and now LGBT. You mentioned before that your wife is Indian and you wouldn't care if you were denied service. That might be true if it was a single case, but if the nation showed the same prejudice against Indians as they do LGBT I'd hope you take a harder stance standing up for their rights. If our people and businesses can show progress, responsibility, and fair treatment then the government can back off. In the meantime, examples will be made.

In the previous cases the real discrimination was economic and political. The discrimination at the counters, and in the buses were symptoms of a far larger problem, which was mandated by governments, both State and more local, and re-enforced by a terrible supreme court decision (Plessey).

The issue I have is that examples are being made of people who are doing no real harm other than hurting another person's feelings, and maybe making them make a few more phone calls or do another google search. The systemic economic and political discrimination that made Jim Crow the force it was it non-existent in this case. Hell, Gays in some studies are shown to be more affluent than your average heterosexual couple, and they have obvious political clout that a black in the 1930's would kill for.

You also are noticing certain States trying to pass crazy laws that even in my view go way too far in allowing people to refuse service. Instead of trying to "live and let live" The activist wing of the LGBT community has decided to go on the offensive. The American people don't really like bullies, and in these cases, the LGBT activists are the ones using the government to squash people they don't like.

I understand where you are coming from but you fail to see that we are in the heart of a larger problem. Right now we are in the middle of LGBT debates about discrimination and marriage rights which effect death rights/benefits, tax implications, adoption rights etc etc etc... This IS an economic and political discussion and goes beyond the bakery counter.

Ruining a baker over not wanting to participate in a gay wedding is the wrong way to cement marriage rights. To put it out there, I thought the SC decision was wrong, to me they should have let States set the marriage contract as they see fit, but force the States to recognize any valid marriage certificate from another State. I just don't see where the federal constitution gives the SC the ability to interfere with a State Function in this manner.

I live in NY, and supported the NY legislature in their action to open up the marriage contract to gays, but it has to be done that way, or by referendum, not by court fiat.

Your larger problem really is you want people who think homosexuality is a sin to "shut up." One can make government equal and make sure that systemic discrimination cannot occur without ruining lone hold outs who's only actual crime is hurting someone's feelings.

Government shouldn't get to decide who's butthurt is more equal.

People can say whatever they want, no matter how hypocritical they are... It's also a sin to lust, and to divorce, and to have sex out of wedlock but I don't see big movements from Christians to block the rights of those sinners... It's a different discussion however, the SC has every right to weigh in on this as it pertains to equal rights of our citizens

 

[martybegan]

You have numbers to back that up? Most people want others to get along, but ask them if government force should be involved and you lose a lot of people.

And with polls, it all goes by how you ask the question.

I agree with you that the less government interference in business the better. But I also understand that sometimes the government needs to step in to stand up for those who are being discriminated against. They did it for blacks, then women, and now LGBT. You mentioned before that your wife is Indian and you wouldn't care if you were denied service. That might be true if it was a single case, but if the nation showed the same prejudice against Indians as they do LGBT I'd hope you take a harder stance standing up for their rights. If our people and businesses can show progress, responsibility, and fair treatment then the government can back off. In the meantime, examples will be made.

In the previous cases the real discrimination was economic and political. The discrimination at the counters, and in the buses were symptoms of a far larger problem, which was mandated by governments, both State and more local, and re-enforced by a terrible supreme court decision (Plessey).

The issue I have is that examples are being made of people who are doing no real harm other than hurting another person's feelings, and maybe making them make a few more phone calls or do another google search. The systemic economic and political discrimination that made Jim Crow the force it was it non-existent in this case. Hell, Gays in some studies are shown to be more affluent than your average heterosexual couple, and they have obvious political clout that a black in the 1930's would kill for.

You also are noticing certain States trying to pass crazy laws that even in my view go way too far in allowing people to refuse service. Instead of trying to "live and let live" The activist wing of the LGBT community has decided to go on the offensive. The American people don't really like bullies, and in these cases, the LGBT activists are the ones using the government to squash people they don't like.

I understand where you are coming from but you fail to see that we are in the heart of a larger problem. Right now we are in the middle of LGBT debates about discrimination and marriage rights which effect death rights/benefits, tax implications, adoption rights etc etc etc... This IS an economic and political discussion and goes beyond the bakery counter.

Ruining a baker over not wanting to participate in a gay wedding is the wrong way to cement marriage rights. To put it out there, I thought the SC decision was wrong, to me they should have let States set the marriage contract as they see fit, but force the States to recognize any valid marriage certificate from another State. I just don't see where the federal constitution gives the SC the ability to interfere with a State Function in this manner.

I live in NY, and supported the NY legislature in their action to open up the marriage contract to gays, but it has to be done that way, or by referendum, not by court fiat.

Your larger problem really is you want people who think homosexuality is a sin to "shut up." One can make government equal and make sure that systemic discrimination cannot occur without ruining lone hold outs who's only actual crime is hurting someone's feelings.

Government shouldn't get to decide who's butthurt is more equal.

People can say whatever they want, no matter how hypocritical they are... It's also a sin to lust, and to divorce, and to have sex out of wedlock but I don't see big movements from Christians to block the rights of those sinners... It's a different discussion however, the SC has every right to weigh in on this as it pertains to equal rights of our citizens

Who am I, you, or more importantly government to decide how a person exercises their religion? The only time government should get involved is if said practice produces some harm by its action on others. I'm sure animal rights activists would love to ban kosher or halal slaughter, but said practice is protected.

You also don't see divorcee's or people boinking out of wedlock, or the lusty having ceremonies that proudly proclaim their "sins" for all to see, and ask people to provide services for said ceremonies. More importantly, I don't see these groups claiming to be a protected class that needs government to go to bat for them.

Now, before anyone goes there no, I am not comparing gays to divorcees, or pre-marital boinkers, or the lusty. I am just responding to a comparative example already made.

 

[Slade3200]

I agree with you that the less government interference in business the better. But I also understand that sometimes the government needs to step in to stand up for those who are being discriminated against. They did it for blacks, then women, and now LGBT. You mentioned before that your wife is Indian and you wouldn't care if you were denied service. That might be true if it was a single case, but if the nation showed the same prejudice against Indians as they do LGBT I'd hope you take a harder stance standing up for their rights. If our people and businesses can show progress, responsibility, and fair treatment then the government can back off. In the meantime, examples will be made.

In the previous cases the real discrimination was economic and political. The discrimination at the counters, and in the buses were symptoms of a far larger problem, which was mandated by governments, both State and more local, and re-enforced by a terrible supreme court decision (Plessey).

The issue I have is that examples are being made of people who are doing no real harm other than hurting another person's feelings, and maybe making them make a few more phone calls or do another google search. The systemic economic and political discrimination that made Jim Crow the force it was it non-existent in this case. Hell, Gays in some studies are shown to be more affluent than your average heterosexual couple, and they have obvious political clout that a black in the 1930's would kill for.

You also are noticing certain States trying to pass crazy laws that even in my view go way too far in allowing people to refuse service. Instead of trying to "live and let live" The activist wing of the LGBT community has decided to go on the offensive. The American people don't really like bullies, and in these cases, the LGBT activists are the ones using the government to squash people they don't like.

I understand where you are coming from but you fail to see that we are in the heart of a larger problem. Right now we are in the middle of LGBT debates about discrimination and marriage rights which effect death rights/benefits, tax implications, adoption rights etc etc etc... This IS an economic and political discussion and goes beyond the bakery counter.

Ruining a baker over not wanting to participate in a gay wedding is the wrong way to cement marriage rights. To put it out there, I thought the SC decision was wrong, to me they should have let States set the marriage contract as they see fit, but force the States to recognize any valid marriage certificate from another State. I just don't see where the federal constitution gives the SC the ability to interfere with a State Function in this manner.

I live in NY, and supported the NY legislature in their action to open up the marriage contract to gays, but it has to be done that way, or by referendum, not by court fiat.

Your larger problem really is you want people who think homosexuality is a sin to "shut up." One can make government equal and make sure that systemic discrimination cannot occur without ruining lone hold outs who's only actual crime is hurting someone's feelings.

Government shouldn't get to decide who's butthurt is more equal.

People can say whatever they want, no matter how hypocritical they are... It's also a sin to lust, and to divorce, and to have sex out of wedlock but I don't see big movements from Christians to block the rights of those sinners... It's a different discussion however, the SC has every right to weigh in on this as it pertains to equal rights of our citizens

Who am I, you, or more importantly government to decide how a person exercises their religion? The only time government should get involved is if said practice produces some harm by its action on others. I'm sure animal rights activists would love to ban kosher or halal slaughter, but said practice is protected.

You also don't see divorcee's or people boinking out of wedlock, or the lusty having ceremonies that proudly proclaim their "sins" for all to see, and ask people to provide services for said ceremonies. More importantly, I don't see these groups claiming to be a protected class that needs government to go to bat for them.

Now, before anyone goes there no, I am not comparing gays to divorcees, or pre-marital boinkers, or the lusty. I am just responding to a comparative example already made.

Inequality = harm How do you not see that?

Marriage isn't a flamboyant, in your face, look at our sins ceremony... It is an expression of love and unity for two people and their family's. Harm, is when a couple who is in love and who lives together can not adopt a child, it is when the partner of one can not enter a hospital room and make end of life decisions for the person they love, there are tax implications, inheritance consequences, and more importantly a public acceptance that their unity is equal to that as a man and woman who decide to unify.

 

[martybegan]

In the previous cases the real discrimination was economic and political. The discrimination at the counters, and in the buses were symptoms of a far larger problem, which was mandated by governments, both State and more local, and re-enforced by a terrible supreme court decision (Plessey).

The issue I have is that examples are being made of people who are doing no real harm other than hurting another person's feelings, and maybe making them make a few more phone calls or do another google search. The systemic economic and political discrimination that made Jim Crow the force it was it non-existent in this case. Hell, Gays in some studies are shown to be more affluent than your average heterosexual couple, and they have obvious political clout that a black in the 1930's would kill for.

You also are noticing certain States trying to pass crazy laws that even in my view go way too far in allowing people to refuse service. Instead of trying to "live and let live" The activist wing of the LGBT community has decided to go on the offensive. The American people don't really like bullies, and in these cases, the LGBT activists are the ones using the government to squash people they don't like.

I understand where you are coming from but you fail to see that we are in the heart of a larger problem. Right now we are in the middle of LGBT debates about discrimination and marriage rights which effect death rights/benefits, tax implications, adoption rights etc etc etc... This IS an economic and political discussion and goes beyond the bakery counter.

Ruining a baker over not wanting to participate in a gay wedding is the wrong way to cement marriage rights. To put it out there, I thought the SC decision was wrong, to me they should have let States set the marriage contract as they see fit, but force the States to recognize any valid marriage certificate from another State. I just don't see where the federal constitution gives the SC the ability to interfere with a State Function in this manner.

I live in NY, and supported the NY legislature in their action to open up the marriage contract to gays, but it has to be done that way, or by referendum, not by court fiat.

Your larger problem really is you want people who think homosexuality is a sin to "shut up." One can make government equal and make sure that systemic discrimination cannot occur without ruining lone hold outs who's only actual crime is hurting someone's feelings.

Government shouldn't get to decide who's butthurt is more equal.

People can say whatever they want, no matter how hypocritical they are... It's also a sin to lust, and to divorce, and to have sex out of wedlock but I don't see big movements from Christians to block the rights of those sinners... It's a different discussion however, the SC has every right to weigh in on this as it pertains to equal rights of our citizens

Who am I, you, or more importantly government to decide how a person exercises their religion? The only time government should get involved is if said practice produces some harm by its action on others. I'm sure animal rights activists would love to ban kosher or halal slaughter, but said practice is protected.

You also don't see divorcee's or people boinking out of wedlock, or the lusty having ceremonies that proudly proclaim their "sins" for all to see, and ask people to provide services for said ceremonies. More importantly, I don't see these groups claiming to be a protected class that needs government to go to bat for them.

Now, before anyone goes there no, I am not comparing gays to divorcees, or pre-marital boinkers, or the lusty. I am just responding to a comparative example already made.

Inequality = harm How do you not see that?

Marriage isn't a flamboyant, in your face, look at our sins ceremony... It is an expression of love and unity for two people and their family's. Harm, is when a couple who is in love and who lives together can not adopt a child, it is when the partner of one can not enter a hospital room and make end of life decisions for the person they love, there are tax implications, inheritance consequences, and more importantly a public acceptance that their unity is equal to that as a man and woman who decide to unify.

Inequality is not always harm, and even if so, when does it become something that government gets involved in? I graduated 4th out of 290 kids in my High School. Did that inequality mandate government action to equalize the outcomes? Should I have been punished because I was smarter than those kids?

All the situations you list do show evidence of actual harm, except public acceptance. Most of them involve government interaction or rules, which I have already said have to be neutral.

By referencing public acceptance. you are trying to say government has a responsibility to get people to like some other group, or at least pretend to, and government shouldn't be doing that.

 

[Slade3200]

I understand where you are coming from but you fail to see that we are in the heart of a larger problem. Right now we are in the middle of LGBT debates about discrimination and marriage rights which effect death rights/benefits, tax implications, adoption rights etc etc etc... This IS an economic and political discussion and goes beyond the bakery counter.

Ruining a baker over not wanting to participate in a gay wedding is the wrong way to cement marriage rights. To put it out there, I thought the SC decision was wrong, to me they should have let States set the marriage contract as they see fit, but force the States to recognize any valid marriage certificate from another State. I just don't see where the federal constitution gives the SC the ability to interfere with a State Function in this manner.

I live in NY, and supported the NY legislature in their action to open up the marriage contract to gays, but it has to be done that way, or by referendum, not by court fiat.

Your larger problem really is you want people who think homosexuality is a sin to "shut up." One can make government equal and make sure that systemic discrimination cannot occur without ruining lone hold outs who's only actual crime is hurting someone's feelings.

Government shouldn't get to decide who's butthurt is more equal.

People can say whatever they want, no matter how hypocritical they are... It's also a sin to lust, and to divorce, and to have sex out of wedlock but I don't see big movements from Christians to block the rights of those sinners... It's a different discussion however, the SC has every right to weigh in on this as it pertains to equal rights of our citizens

Who am I, you, or more importantly government to decide how a person exercises their religion? The only time government should get involved is if said practice produces some harm by its action on others. I'm sure animal rights activists would love to ban kosher or halal slaughter, but said practice is protected.

You also don't see divorcee's or people boinking out of wedlock, or the lusty having ceremonies that proudly proclaim their "sins" for all to see, and ask people to provide services for said ceremonies. More importantly, I don't see these groups claiming to be a protected class that needs government to go to bat for them.

Now, before anyone goes there no, I am not comparing gays to divorcees, or pre-marital boinkers, or the lusty. I am just responding to a comparative example already made.

Inequality = harm How do you not see that?

Marriage isn't a flamboyant, in your face, look at our sins ceremony... It is an expression of love and unity for two people and their family's. Harm, is when a couple who is in love and who lives together can not adopt a child, it is when the partner of one can not enter a hospital room and make end of life decisions for the person they love, there are tax implications, inheritance consequences, and more importantly a public acceptance that their unity is equal to that as a man and woman who decide to unify.

Inequality is not always harm, and even if so, when does it become something that government gets involved in? I graduated 4th out of 290 kids in my High School. Did that inequality mandate government action to equalize the outcomes? Should I have been punished because I was smarter than those kids?

All the situations you list do show evidence of actual harm, except public acceptance. Most of them involve government interaction or rules, which I have already said have to be neutral.

By referencing public acceptance. you are trying to say government has a responsibility to get people to like some other group, or at least pretend to, and government shouldn't be doing that.

substitute inequality with discrimination... I misspoke... To your other points, substitute LGBT with Blacks and Women and the 2000's with the early 1900's. This is a repetition of history and should speak for itself.

 

[Katzndogz]

In the previous cases the real discrimination was economic and political. The discrimination at the counters, and in the buses were symptoms of a far larger problem, which was mandated by governments, both State and more local, and re-enforced by a terrible supreme court decision (Plessey).

The issue I have is that examples are being made of people who are doing no real harm other than hurting another person's feelings, and maybe making them make a few more phone calls or do another google search. The systemic economic and political discrimination that made Jim Crow the force it was it non-existent in this case. Hell, Gays in some studies are shown to be more affluent than your average heterosexual couple, and they have obvious political clout that a black in the 1930's would kill for.

You also are noticing certain States trying to pass crazy laws that even in my view go way too far in allowing people to refuse service. Instead of trying to "live and let live" The activist wing of the LGBT community has decided to go on the offensive. The American people don't really like bullies, and in these cases, the LGBT activists are the ones using the government to squash people they don't like.

I understand where you are coming from but you fail to see that we are in the heart of a larger problem. Right now we are in the middle of LGBT debates about discrimination and marriage rights which effect death rights/benefits, tax implications, adoption rights etc etc etc... This IS an economic and political discussion and goes beyond the bakery counter.

Ruining a baker over not wanting to participate in a gay wedding is the wrong way to cement marriage rights. To put it out there, I thought the SC decision was wrong, to me they should have let States set the marriage contract as they see fit, but force the States to recognize any valid marriage certificate from another State. I just don't see where the federal constitution gives the SC the ability to interfere with a State Function in this manner.

I live in NY, and supported the NY legislature in their action to open up the marriage contract to gays, but it has to be done that way, or by referendum, not by court fiat.

Your larger problem really is you want people who think homosexuality is a sin to "shut up." One can make government equal and make sure that systemic discrimination cannot occur without ruining lone hold outs who's only actual crime is hurting someone's feelings.

Government shouldn't get to decide who's butthurt is more equal.

People can say whatever they want, no matter how hypocritical they are... It's also a sin to lust, and to divorce, and to have sex out of wedlock but I don't see big movements from Christians to block the rights of those sinners... It's a different discussion however, the SC has every right to weigh in on this as it pertains to equal rights of our citizens

Who am I, you, or more importantly government to decide how a person exercises their religion? The only time government should get involved is if said practice produces some harm by its action on others. I'm sure animal rights activists would love to ban kosher or halal slaughter, but said practice is protected.

You also don't see divorcee's or people boinking out of wedlock, or the lusty having ceremonies that proudly proclaim their "sins" for all to see, and ask people to provide services for said ceremonies. More importantly, I don't see these groups claiming to be a protected class that needs government to go to bat for them.

Now, before anyone goes there no, I am not comparing gays to divorcees, or pre-marital boinkers, or the lusty. I am just responding to a comparative example already made.

Inequality = harm How do you not see that?

Marriage isn't a flamboyant, in your face, look at our sins ceremony... It is an expression of love and unity for two people and their family's. Harm, is when a couple who is in love and who lives together can not adopt a child, it is when the partner of one can not enter a hospital room and make end of life decisions for the person they love, there are tax implications, inheritance consequences, and more importantly a public acceptance that their unity is equal to that as a man and woman who decide to unify.

What you are missing is that no one cares what they do. They won the right to marry. Now others want the right not to be forced into participating in that marriage. Inequality isn't harm. Equality and freedom are mutually exclusive you cannot have both.

People need to be protected from gay oppression even if it takes physical violence to win that freedom.

 

[martybegan]

Ruining a baker over not wanting to participate in a gay wedding is the wrong way to cement marriage rights. To put it out there, I thought the SC decision was wrong, to me they should have let States set the marriage contract as they see fit, but force the States to recognize any valid marriage certificate from another State. I just don't see where the federal constitution gives the SC the ability to interfere with a State Function in this manner.

I live in NY, and supported the NY legislature in their action to open up the marriage contract to gays, but it has to be done that way, or by referendum, not by court fiat.

Your larger problem really is you want people who think homosexuality is a sin to "shut up." One can make government equal and make sure that systemic discrimination cannot occur without ruining lone hold outs who's only actual crime is hurting someone's feelings.

Government shouldn't get to decide who's butthurt is more equal.

People can say whatever they want, no matter how hypocritical they are... It's also a sin to lust, and to divorce, and to have sex out of wedlock but I don't see big movements from Christians to block the rights of those sinners... It's a different discussion however, the SC has every right to weigh in on this as it pertains to equal rights of our citizens

Who am I, you, or more importantly government to decide how a person exercises their religion? The only time government should get involved is if said practice produces some harm by its action on others. I'm sure animal rights activists would love to ban kosher or halal slaughter, but said practice is protected.

You also don't see divorcee's or people boinking out of wedlock, or the lusty having ceremonies that proudly proclaim their "sins" for all to see, and ask people to provide services for said ceremonies. More importantly, I don't see these groups claiming to be a protected class that needs government to go to bat for them.

Now, before anyone goes there no, I am not comparing gays to divorcees, or pre-marital boinkers, or the lusty. I am just responding to a comparative example already made.

Inequality = harm How do you not see that?

Marriage isn't a flamboyant, in your face, look at our sins ceremony... It is an expression of love and unity for two people and their family's. Harm, is when a couple who is in love and who lives together can not adopt a child, it is when the partner of one can not enter a hospital room and make end of life decisions for the person they love, there are tax implications, inheritance consequences, and more importantly a public acceptance that their unity is equal to that as a man and woman who decide to unify.

Inequality is not always harm, and even if so, when does it become something that government gets involved in? I graduated 4th out of 290 kids in my High School. Did that inequality mandate government action to equalize the outcomes? Should I have been punished because I was smarter than those kids?

All the situations you list do show evidence of actual harm, except public acceptance. Most of them involve government interaction or rules, which I have already said have to be neutral.

By referencing public acceptance. you are trying to say government has a responsibility to get people to like some other group, or at least pretend to, and government shouldn't be doing that.

substitute inequality with discrimination... I misspoke... To your other points, substitute LGBT with Blacks and Women and the 2000's with the early 1900's. This is a repetition of history and should speak for itself.

Back in the 1900's women were punished economically and politically by government as well as social conventions. Its the same with blacks between the Civil War and the Civil Rights era. Those examples simply do not cross over to the current situation with homosexuals. While the social oppression was always there, the political and economic oppression was often avoided by being under the radar, something women and blacks just couldn't do. When gays decided to "fight the power" they emerged with a background and power base already established (if closeted) that women and blacks simply didn't have. its why the fight took far shorter for them than with the other groups.

None of this explains why government has to punish one side in an argument basically over who's butt hurt is more equal than the other's butt hurt. In the battle of some people's butt hurt over serving gay people, and the gay people's butt hurt over being told that said other people's desire to not serve them, why does government get to punish one side instead of the other?

 

[Slade3200]

People can say whatever they want, no matter how hypocritical they are... It's also a sin to lust, and to divorce, and to have sex out of wedlock but I don't see big movements from Christians to block the rights of those sinners... It's a different discussion however, the SC has every right to weigh in on this as it pertains to equal rights of our citizens

Who am I, you, or more importantly government to decide how a person exercises their religion? The only time government should get involved is if said practice produces some harm by its action on others. I'm sure animal rights activists would love to ban kosher or halal slaughter, but said practice is protected.

You also don't see divorcee's or people boinking out of wedlock, or the lusty having ceremonies that proudly proclaim their "sins" for all to see, and ask people to provide services for said ceremonies. More importantly, I don't see these groups claiming to be a protected class that needs government to go to bat for them.

Now, before anyone goes there no, I am not comparing gays to divorcees, or pre-marital boinkers, or the lusty. I am just responding to a comparative example already made.

Inequality = harm How do you not see that?

Marriage isn't a flamboyant, in your face, look at our sins ceremony... It is an expression of love and unity for two people and their family's. Harm, is when a couple who is in love and who lives together can not adopt a child, it is when the partner of one can not enter a hospital room and make end of life decisions for the person they love, there are tax implications, inheritance consequences, and more importantly a public acceptance that their unity is equal to that as a man and woman who decide to unify.

Inequality is not always harm, and even if so, when does it become something that government gets involved in? I graduated 4th out of 290 kids in my High School. Did that inequality mandate government action to equalize the outcomes? Should I have been punished because I was smarter than those kids?

All the situations you list do show evidence of actual harm, except public acceptance. Most of them involve government interaction or rules, which I have already said have to be neutral.

By referencing public acceptance. you are trying to say government has a responsibility to get people to like some other group, or at least pretend to, and government shouldn't be doing that.

substitute inequality with discrimination... I misspoke... To your other points, substitute LGBT with Blacks and Women and the 2000's with the early 1900's. This is a repetition of history and should speak for itself.

Back in the 1900's women were punished economically and politically by government as well as social conventions. Its the same with blacks between the Civil War and the Civil Rights era. Those examples simply do not cross over to the current situation with homosexuals. While the social oppression was always there, the political and economic oppression was often avoided by being under the radar, something women and blacks just couldn't do. When gays decided to "fight the power" they emerged with a background and power base already established (if closeted) that women and blacks simply didn't have. its why the fight took far shorter for them than with the other groups.

None of this explains why government has to punish one side in an argument basically over who's butt hurt is more equal than the other's butt hurt. In the battle of some people's butt hurt over serving gay people, and the gay people's butt hurt over being told that said other people's desire to not serve them, why does government get to punish one side instead of the other?

I feel like we are now going in circles so perhaps its time to say we agree to disagree and end it there... I just have one more question for you... If a gay couple goes into a restaurant or a single person wearing a rainbow shirt... Is it OK with you for the restaurant to deny them service?

 

[martybegan]

Who am I, you, or more importantly government to decide how a person exercises their religion? The only time government should get involved is if said practice produces some harm by its action on others. I'm sure animal rights activists would love to ban kosher or halal slaughter, but said practice is protected.

You also don't see divorcee's or people boinking out of wedlock, or the lusty having ceremonies that proudly proclaim their "sins" for all to see, and ask people to provide services for said ceremonies. More importantly, I don't see these groups claiming to be a protected class that needs government to go to bat for them.

Now, before anyone goes there no, I am not comparing gays to divorcees, or pre-marital boinkers, or the lusty. I am just responding to a comparative example already made.

Inequality = harm How do you not see that?

Marriage isn't a flamboyant, in your face, look at our sins ceremony... It is an expression of love and unity for two people and their family's. Harm, is when a couple who is in love and who lives together can not adopt a child, it is when the partner of one can not enter a hospital room and make end of life decisions for the person they love, there are tax implications, inheritance consequences, and more importantly a public acceptance that their unity is equal to that as a man and woman who decide to unify.

Inequality is not always harm, and even if so, when does it become something that government gets involved in? I graduated 4th out of 290 kids in my High School. Did that inequality mandate government action to equalize the outcomes? Should I have been punished because I was smarter than those kids?

All the situations you list do show evidence of actual harm, except public acceptance. Most of them involve government interaction or rules, which I have already said have to be neutral.

By referencing public acceptance. you are trying to say government has a responsibility to get people to like some other group, or at least pretend to, and government shouldn't be doing that.

substitute inequality with discrimination... I misspoke... To your other points, substitute LGBT with Blacks and Women and the 2000's with the early 1900's. This is a repetition of history and should speak for itself.

Back in the 1900's women were punished economically and politically by government as well as social conventions. Its the same with blacks between the Civil War and the Civil Rights era. Those examples simply do not cross over to the current situation with homosexuals. While the social oppression was always there, the political and economic oppression was often avoided by being under the radar, something women and blacks just couldn't do. When gays decided to "fight the power" they emerged with a background and power base already established (if closeted) that women and blacks simply didn't have. its why the fight took far shorter for them than with the other groups.

None of this explains why government has to punish one side in an argument basically over who's butt hurt is more equal than the other's butt hurt. In the battle of some people's butt hurt over serving gay people, and the gay people's butt hurt over being told that said other people's desire to not serve them, why does government get to punish one side instead of the other?

I feel like we are now going in circles so perhaps its time to say we agree to disagree and end it there... I just have one more question for you... If a gay couple goes into a restaurant or a single person wearing a rainbow shirt... Is it OK with you for the restaurant to deny them service?

I actually think restaurants are public accommodations when it comes to standard service, and service shouldn't be denied. Now, the restaurant, if it allows itself to be bought out to host events, shouldn't be forced to host a gay wedding if it doesn't want to.

 

[Slade3200]

Inequality = harm How do you not see that?

Marriage isn't a flamboyant, in your face, look at our sins ceremony... It is an expression of love and unity for two people and their family's. Harm, is when a couple who is in love and who lives together can not adopt a child, it is when the partner of one can not enter a hospital room and make end of life decisions for the person they love, there are tax implications, inheritance consequences, and more importantly a public acceptance that their unity is equal to that as a man and woman who decide to unify.

Inequality is not always harm, and even if so, when does it become something that government gets involved in? I graduated 4th out of 290 kids in my High School. Did that inequality mandate government action to equalize the outcomes? Should I have been punished because I was smarter than those kids?

All the situations you list do show evidence of actual harm, except public acceptance. Most of them involve government interaction or rules, which I have already said have to be neutral.

By referencing public acceptance. you are trying to say government has a responsibility to get people to like some other group, or at least pretend to, and government shouldn't be doing that.

substitute inequality with discrimination... I misspoke... To your other points, substitute LGBT with Blacks and Women and the 2000's with the early 1900's. This is a repetition of history and should speak for itself.

Back in the 1900's women were punished economically and politically by government as well as social conventions. Its the same with blacks between the Civil War and the Civil Rights era. Those examples simply do not cross over to the current situation with homosexuals. While the social oppression was always there, the political and economic oppression was often avoided by being under the radar, something women and blacks just couldn't do. When gays decided to "fight the power" they emerged with a background and power base already established (if closeted) that women and blacks simply didn't have. its why the fight took far shorter for them than with the other groups.

None of this explains why government has to punish one side in an argument basically over who's butt hurt is more equal than the other's butt hurt. In the battle of some people's butt hurt over serving gay people, and the gay people's butt hurt over being told that said other people's desire to not serve them, why does government get to punish one side instead of the other?

I feel like we are now going in circles so perhaps its time to say we agree to disagree and end it there... I just have one more question for you... If a gay couple goes into a restaurant or a single person wearing a rainbow shirt... Is it OK with you for the restaurant to deny them service?

I actually think restaurants are public accommodations when it comes to standard service, and service shouldn't be denied. Now, the restaurant, if it allows itself to be bought out to host events, shouldn't be forced to host a gay wedding if it doesn't want to.

Although I don't agree I appreciate the discussion... I think you'll come around someday, you're almost there ;-)