Gods Own Party Can’t Get Over Same Sex Marriage

[TheProgressivePatriot]

ear TheProgressivePatriot
Yes it is a conflict of beliefs and that's why people aren't able to change their views.
People who believe LGBT is inborn, natural and cannot be changed
are going to argue for protection of this as a class not a behavior.
People who believe it is a choice, whether natural or unnatural,
and it is a behavior are going to argue it cannot be protected as a class because it is choice of behavior.

Actually it is a conflict between people who have thought objectively and logically about it and have looked the biology and the social science data vs. those who are invested in willful ignorance because the truth would undermine the basis for their bigotry.

These straight people who insist that it's a choice get all flustered when asked questions like when did you chose to be straight or could you chose to be gay?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The Supreme Court can rule that a law is unconstitutional and strike it down .
But it is still the job of the legislature to write or reform the written laws to establish something as legal.

Example: The SC is right in striking down BANS on same sex marriage as unconstitutional
because it deprives citizens of free exercise of their beliefs in such marriage.

But that's NOT the same as state legislatures passing laws ENDORSING and implementing same sex marriage through govt.

Striking down bans as unconstitutional
is NOT the same as passing laws legalizing what was banned.

So what.?? The effect is the same. Many states would never legalize it through legislation. It is the legitimate role of the court to step in when a state is in violation of the constitution. Court rulings carry the force of law in exactly the same way as legislation

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

To establish "right to marriage" equally as "right to bear arms"
requires a Constitutional Amendment passed by STATES.
Courts cannot just declare a right and then it carries the same
authority as rights delineated in the Constitution that were made law
by writing legislation and passing these by States.

They can and they did

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Otherwise that is the Judicial branch acting as Legislative,
instead of those powers and duties being distinct jurisdictions and authority.

It is the judicial branch doing what the states would not do.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

And otherwise, that is the Courts becoming like a divine authority
to RULE on behalf of people without check or balance by the other
branches designed to protect the representation and free exercise/choice/consent of the people
from tyrannical dictatorship by judges and courts.

There are checks on the courts. Congress is still free to pass a constitutional amendment declaring that marriage is between a man and a woman and send it to the states for ratification which would effectively overturn Obergefell but there does not seem to be any political will to do so

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Courts cannot just declare a right and then it carries the same
authority as rights delineated in the Constitution that were made law
by writing legislation and passing these by States.

You don't know nearly as much about Constitutional law as you have deluded yourself into believing you do

Unenumerated Rights

Unenumerated Rights
Rights that are not expressly mentioned in the written text of a constitution but instead are inferred from the language, history, and structure of the constitution, or cases interpreting it.

Typically, the term unenumerated rights describes certain fundamental rights that have been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court under the U.S. Constitution. In addition, state courts have recognized unenumerated rights emanating from the principles enunciated by their own state constitutions. No comprehensive list of unenumerated rights has ever been compiled nor could such a list be readily produced precisely because these rights are unenumerated.

Nevertheless, a partial list of unenumerated rights might include those specifically recognized by the Supreme Court, such as the right to travel, the right to privacy, the right to autonomy, the right to dignity, and the right to an Abortion, which is based on the right to privacy. Other rights could easily be added to this list, and no doubt will be in the future. In washington v. glucksberg, 117 S. Ct. 2258 (1997), the Supreme Court ruled that there is no unenumerated constitutional right to die.

Here is more reading incase you are interested in expanding your horizons instead of clinging to narrow and shallow 'beliefs"

Penumbras of the Constitution: charting the origins of the abolition of moral legislation

 

[Bob Blaylock]

In the case of Crosses or prayer, what harm is caused by allowing a teacher's memorial on public school property
to display a cross? What harm is caused by allowing a Veteran's memorial to stand that is built with a Cross in the design?
Yet these things were subjects of lawsuits for removal based on PRINCIPLE.

I really do no understand what that has to do with same sex marriage but since you asked, the harm is that it alienates and marginalizes those who fine such symbols oppressive . It is showing favoritism for the symbol of one religion over others on public property. Have you read the first amendment?

If someone thinks that he is being harmed, alienated, marginalized, or oppressed, because he sees symbols associated with beliefs other than his own, then that person has much bigger problems, that will not be solved, will not even be addressed by censoring those symbols.

It is not the responsibility of mainstream society, nor of any member thereof, to sacrifice those freedoms of expression and religion that are affirmed by the First Amendment, in order to pander to mental weaklings who imagine that they are being harmed by the fact that others are being allowed to hold and express beliefs that these pathetic, pussified cretins find disagreeable.

Most bizarre of all, the premise that you express, that the First Amendment allows, and even requires, the exact sort of censorship and suppression that it was explicitly written to prohibit. Just one more datum to demonstrate that modern LIbEralism has degenerated into what can only honestly be characterized now as a mental and moral disease.

 

[AZGAL]

SAVE DIANNE!!!

 

[emilynghiem]

I've stated my solution before:
Since both sides are equally faith based and equal free choice of individuals with equal rights and protection of law,
then both sides should mediate and come up with a mutually agreed solution.
That should be required by law.

You just can't get away from the nonsensical idea that sexual orientation/ gender is faith based.

Dear TheProgressivePatriot
I said the BELIEFS about it are!

 

[emilynghiem]

^ And the same can be said of same sex marriage in the govt policy.
It favors people who believe in including same sex marriage
and discriminates against people for whom this ritual is against their beliefs.
similar to atheists who don't believe in including Christian prayer while
Buddhists have no problem with it nor do Muslims I know and they aren't Christian.^
TheProgressivePatriot

Oh please, we have been over this before. Forcing those who would discriminate against others to, instead treat them equally, IS NOT DISCRIMINATING. That is just ridiculous. You cannot make everyone happy and I have no problem in making narrow minded bigots unhappy.

1.Yes TheProgressivePatriot
AGREED it is wrongful for govt and public institutions to discriminate against PEOPLE for their beliefs
2. But No, it is natural and lawful for people
to choose whether or not to accept or reject ***BEHAVIOR*** based on beliefs.

examples:
1. in the cases of bakeries and discrimination lawsuits
Yes it is wrongful/unlawful to discriminate against serving CUSTOMERS based on LGBT identity or beliefs
2. but NO it is the free choice of individuals whether or not
to engage in ACTIVITIES EVENTS ie BEHAVIORAL choices that violate their beliefs.

Are we in agreement on the difference
between discriminating against PEOPLE
and choosing what exercises or expressions of beliefs to participate in or not?

Thanks!

If this is not clear, how about this explanation:
1. the state or businesses would be wrong if
they only allowed STRAIGHT/Heterosexual people to buy
cakes or get licenses for "SAME SEX weddings"
while not allowing SAME SEX couples or homosexual people
from these activities. That is discriminating against PEOPLE.
2. But if both gay and straight people and couples are
BOTH refused "same sex marriage licenses"
or if a business denies this type of design or
declines to participate in a same sex wedding
for EITHER gay or straight people, then that's
choosing not to engage in a certain activity, ritual or behavior.

In the case of the State, NO ONE is approved to license a same sex marriage
Unless the people of that state agree on a policy that represents all their beliefs without conflict.

In the case of the Business, the owners apply the same standard and
refuse to design or participate in any activity or message that conflicts with their beliefs against same sex marriage,
whether the customers is gay, straight, bi, cis, trans or whatever.

They refuse ALL people because they don't believe in THAT activity for them.
So that is choosing not to engage in BEHAVIOR and is not about the people.

NOTE: I AGREE with you that in cases where
PEOPLE were discriminated against, that is against public accommodation laws.
But any business can refuse to permit or engage in certain BEHAVIOR.

 

[emilynghiem]

In the case of Crosses or prayer, what harm is caused by allowing a teacher's memorial on public school property
to display a cross? What harm is caused by allowing a Veteran's memorial to stand that is built with a Cross in the design?
Yet these things were subjects of lawsuits for removal based on PRINCIPLE.

I really do no understand what that has to do with same sex marriage but since you asked, the harm is that it alienates and marginalizes those who fine such symbols oppressive . It is showing favoritism for the symbol of one religion over others on public property. Have you read the first amendment?

If someone thinks that he is being harmed, alienated, marginalized, or oppressed, because he sees symbols associated with beliefs other than his own, then that person has much bigger problems, that will not be solved, will not even be addressed by censoring those symbols.

It is not the responsibility of mainstream society, nor of any member thereof, to sacrifice those freedoms of expression and religion that are affirmed by the First Amendment, in order to pander to mental weaklings who imagine that they are being harmed by the fact that others are being allowed to hold and express beliefs that these pathetic, pussified cretins find disagreeable.

Most bizarre of all, the premise that you express, that the First Amendment allows, and even requires, the exact sort of censorship and suppression that it was explicitly written to prohibit. Just one more datum to demonstrate that modern LIbEralism has degenerated into what can only honestly be characterized now as a mental and moral disease.

Yes and No Bob Blaylock
This argument goes both ways.
Christians are not harmed by the EXPRESSION or practice of same sex marriage, which is a free choice in exercising religion or beliefs that LGBT orientation is natural.
HOWEVER, it is unconstitutional for Govt to ENDORSE, to "prohibit or establish"
a faith based bias or practice by implementing it through state or public institutions.

So that causes harm by violating the principle and integrity of laws.

In PRIVATE, no, people are free to choose and exercise and express their LGBT beliefs.
But in PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS, this is where opponents cite the PRINCIPLE of not establishing faith based choices through govt
* and either argue to remove Christian based symbols, expressions and practices from public policy and institutions
* or they may argue to remove LGBT beliefs about marriage and benefits for same sex couples from public policy and taxpayer funded programs

 

[emilynghiem]

ear TheProgressivePatriot
Yes it is a conflict of beliefs and that's why people aren't able to change their views.
People who believe LGBT is inborn, natural and cannot be changed
are going to argue for protection of this as a class not a behavior.
People who believe it is a choice, whether natural or unnatural,
and it is a behavior are going to argue it cannot be protected as a class because it is choice of behavior.

Actually it is a conflict between people who have thought objectively and logically about it and have looked the biology and the social science data vs. those who are invested in willful ignorance because the truth would undermine the basis for their bigotry.

These straight people who insist that it's a choice get all flustered when asked questions like when did you chose to be straight or could you chose to be gay?

TheProgressivePatriot
I find as many LGBT advocates get twisted around
when I bring up cases of people HEALED of unwanted homosexual attractions that
WEREN'T natural for them and DID change after they healed from abusive causes and/or conditions.

As many people on BOTH sides aren't used to considering
what if they are BOTH right, and SOME cases can change because the homosexuality wasn't really natural to begin with,
and SOME cases cannot change because (spiritually or scientifically) that's just how that person is!

The explanation that covers the most cases is to be open to
ALL of them explaining SOME of the cases that people use as proof for their positions.

Instead of arguing that all life forms are animals
vs. all life forms are plants, we can agree that
SOME are animals and SOME are plants.
You cannot just "count the cases" that fit one description
and expect to cover all life forms; that rule will be wrong by leaving out the other half.

If you keep excluding all animals (that don't fit your rule) and only argue that life forms are "all plants,"
this requires shutting out "all the other cases out there" that are animals.
And vice versa, if you keep arguing that all life forms are animals, and exclude any plants that don't fit that rule,
you are still not covering all the life forms out there.
Can you wonder why both sides taking this approach
are going to find the other to be wrong?

They are BOTH wrong in excluding other cases.
They are BOTH right in INCLUDING the cases the other rule leaves out!

So in the end, both sides are equally right and wrong,
if they mutually EXCLUDE the other cases!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

1.Yes TheProgressivePatriot
AGREED it is wrongful for govt and public institutions to discriminate against PEOPLE for their beliefs
2. But No, it is natural and lawful for people
to choose whether or not to accept or reject ***BEHAVIOR*** based on beliefs.

It is unlawful to discriminate against people-regardless of whether or not you "accept them" in the space between your ears- In places of public accommodation. Yes Emily- It is that simple, but you have to obfuscate everything with your blather about beliefs and what not.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

xamples:
1. in the cases of bakeries and discrimination lawsuits
Yes it is wrongful/unlawful to discriminate against serving CUSTOMERS based on LGBT identity or beliefs
2. but NO it is the free choice of individuals whether or not
to engage in ACTIVITIES EVENTS ie BEHAVIORAL choices that violate their beliefs.

Are we in agreement on the difference
between discriminating against PEOPLE
and choosing what exercises or expressions of beliefs to participate in or not?

Right, no one should be forced to engage in gay sex. Agreed

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

f this is not clear, how about this explanation:
1. the state or businesses would be wrong if
they only allowed STRAIGHT/Heterosexual people to buy
cakes or get licenses for "SAME SEX weddings"
while not allowing SAME SEX couples or homosexual people
from these activities. That is discriminating against PEOPLE.
2. But if both gay and straight people and couples are
BOTH refused "same sex marriage licenses"
or if a business denies this type of design or
declines to participate in a same sex wedding
for EITHER gay or straight people, then that's
choosing not to engage in a certain activity, ritual or behavior.

Let me see if I can cut through the word salad here. No private business or government agency can be forced to provide goods or services to any one group, if it is not something that they do not normally provide in the course of business...See Simple!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

2. But if both gay and straight people and couples are
BOTH refused "same sex marriage licenses"
or if a business denies this type of design or
declines to participate in a same sex wedding
for EITHER gay or straight people, then that's
choosing not to engage in a certain activity, ritual or behavior.

Wait now WHAT??!! That makes no sense! Are straight people going to order a "gay cake" whatever the hell that is?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

In the case of the State, NO ONE is approved to license a same sex marriage
Unless the people of that state agree on a policy that represents all their beliefs without conflict.

Nonsense! Just idiocy!!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

In the case of the Business, the owners apply the same standard and
refuse to design or participate in any activity or message that conflicts with their beliefs against same sex marriage,
whether the customers is gay, straight, bi, cis, trans or whatever.

They refuse ALL people because they don't believe in THAT activity for them.
So that is choosing not to engage in BEHAVIOR and is not about the people.

More nonsense. A wedding cake is a wedding cake. The only difference is that the names may show that it is for two people of the same gender, and if that assails the bakers sensibilities, they should go into another line of work

 

[Slyhunter]

In the case of the Business, the owners apply the same standard and
refuse to design or participate in any activity or message that conflicts with their beliefs against same sex marriage,
whether the customers is gay, straight, bi, cis, trans or whatever.

They refuse ALL people because they don't believe in THAT activity for them.
So that is choosing not to engage in BEHAVIOR and is not about the people.

More nonsense. A wedding cake is a wedding cake. The only difference is that the names may show that it is for two people of the same gender, and if that assails the bakers sensibilities, they should go into another line of work

Having two males on it instead of a male and a female.

 

[emilynghiem]

1.Yes TheProgressivePatriot
AGREED it is wrongful for govt and public institutions to discriminate against PEOPLE for their beliefs
2. But No, it is natural and lawful for people
to choose whether or not to accept or reject ***BEHAVIOR*** based on beliefs.

It is unlawful to discriminate against people-regardless of whether or not you "accept them" in the space between your ears- In places of public accommodation. Yes Emily- It is that simple, but you have to obfuscate everything with your blather about beliefs and what not.

Yes this is where we agree TheProgressivePatriot
But people's identity affiliation or internal belief/orienation
is different from BEHAVIOR and ACTIVITIES.
These are TWO different things.

So yes, denying accommodation to PEOPLE is wrongful discrimination
but refusing an ACTIVITY is free choice.

Examples again:
A. flipside
When schools do not allow the INSTITUTION to initiate public prayer
that is the ACTIVITY, not the PEOPLE.
1. the STUDENTS can pray however they wish
2. the ADMINISTRATION cannot instigate a prayer
and require all the attendees to participate

Do you agree that in the case of PRAYER
it is NOT the PEOPLE or their FAITH that is discriminated against
because they are allowed to pray on their own,
but the ACTIVITY or GROUP PRAYER that OTHERS
enforce the right to CHOOSE OR NOT.

So this PRAYER this ACTIVITY is what is being refused,
and can't be forced on others if they refuse or choose OTHERWISE.

Nobody is barring those PEOPLE but the PRAYER activity.

B. back to the business examples:

If I am in a business of selling photography services,
if you come into my storefront and ask to hire me,
I cannot refuse YOU as a customer.

But I can refuse to photograph CONTENT I don't choose for whatever reasons:
* adult films or gay porn, or poses of men demeaning women
or women demeaning men, or BSD between consenting adults
even if these are LEGAL. I can refuse those ACTIVITIES by free choice
* images or video of animals being slaughtered in factories
for food even though this is LEGAL but I do not wish to
participate in some ACTIVITY whether for personal or political purposes
or whatever my reasons are for not wanting to film THOSE EVENTS or CONTENT
* war images, surgical procedures, etc. that for whatever
reason I do not wish to film, photograph or document, etc.

But I CAN offer to photograph or film OTHER events
for YOU, so I am not refusing YOU as a Customer,
but just expressing and enforcing LIMITS on what
CONTENT and material, what ideas or events I am
willing and interested and/or CHOOSE to photograph or video.