Marriage Beliefs: Honesty, can't we ADMIT we have political differences in bias and beliefs???

[PaintMyHouse]

I believe that I am perfectly safe driving at 100 miles an hour, but those damn cops keep oppressing my freedom...

What about the other people on the road you stupid *****

Since when did you become concerned about other people? You don't care about gay people and their lives...

 

[kaz]

I believe in equality.

No, you don't. Those of us who believe in equality oppose government marriage. Government marriage in itself is inequality. All citizens should be treated the same by government. The idea of having equal access to inequality is not equality.

Also, you don't believe in equality in anything else either

 

[kaz]

What about the other people on the road you stupid *****

Since when did you become concerned about other people?

From you? OOOOOOKKKKKKKKKAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYY...

 

[Skylar]

Our very first amendment addresses BELIEFS.

And as the courts have found repeatedly, you having a belief doesn't invalidate generally applicable law.
If such were the case, then Sharia would trump US civil law. It obviously doesn't.

There can be no laws that target a particular religion. But the religious are as subject to general law as anyone else. There's no 'religious exemption' from taxes or speeding laws for example. Nor should there be.

Our Country was founded on BELIEFS

Our country was founded on very specific beliefs. Not all beliefs are compatible with those the nation was founded on. Nor does any random belief invalid general law.

What you're arguing for is a religiously based sovereign citizen system. Where the applicability of any law is based solely on your agreement with that law.

Nope. That's not our system, nor has it ever been our system.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Sorry but the US Constitution is here to stay.

Deal with it.

I am asking Luddly Neddite
Do you enforce Constitutional equality equally for all beliefs

Anyone's 'belief' isn't the basis of constitutionality. Rendering your entire basis of argument invalid.

No, but Constitutional restrictions on govt stop at beliefs.

What I'm saying is in cases where BELIEFS ARE INVOLVED
then Govt has a duty to comply with Constitutional protections
and neither establish nor deny the free exercise of beliefs,
nor discriminate on the basis of creeds.

Skylar

Your beliefs are not the law, nor does the law have to accommodate them. You might believe in burning witches but we have laws against such things.

Yes, I'm also saying beliefs cannot be made into law.
But that's what is happening with the BELIEF that health care is a right through govt,
or BELIEF that gay marriage belongs in the public sphere.

These BELIEFS are being made into law against the BELIEFS of people who can't be excluded or discriminated against
without violating Constitutional restriction on govt.

So PaintMyHouse
If the law was passed based on the BELIEF in traditional marriage only, excluding gay marriage,
You'd object right? Even if that law was passed, you'd contest it because it is a belief in conflict right?

This is what I mean, that such BELIEFS cannot be passed as law.

That is the same concept I think you are arguing, that beliefs should not be mandated by law.

Society has a morality. We pass laws that are in in line with said morality. Your morality might be different, we don't care. Where your morality can be accommodated it likely will be but just because you believe something doesn't mean we are going to allow you to act upon said belief if it is in conflict with our communal morality, like the moral stance Serve One, Serve All.

 

[emilynghiem]

Liberalism is the belief that founded this country, which you reject. That is what makes you an American in name only.

Dear PaintMyHouse Thanks for clarifying which branch of liberalism
you follow, this helps a lot, and I can follow your reasoning now that I get what track you follow.
This is a VERY critical discussion to have, so thanks for talking this through. We need to understand the difference between classic liberalism and radical liberalism to work with BOTH.

You should be more specific. There have historically always been two branches of liberalism
1. Classic Liberalism associated with John Locke is the branch that has become the Conservatives of today.
The idea that rights of man are naturally inherent by human nature or God, not dependent on govt, and the role of the Constitutional laws is an agreement to limit the powers of federal govt and protect the liberty of the states and people.
2. Radical Liberalism associated with Rousseau is the branch that has become the Liberals today.
The idea that people will abuse power unless the govt is used to establish the will of the people and force all citizens to comply for the greater good of the public.

So one approach seeks to use govt to check the people from abuse.
The other seeks to represent the people to check govt from abuse of power.

Where the two agree is to resolve the source of abuses, so that we don't fight
over regulations or deregulations that affect other people besides the ones actually responsible for the abuses in question.

Where we disagree is where people don't have the same faith,
and want to revert to govt to regulate that.
Such as people not trusting individuals with the choice of abortion, and wanting govt to ban it.
Or people not trusting individuals with gun rights, and wanting govt to regulate that.
Or people not trusting corporations to respect environment or citizen rights, and wanting
govt to regulate that.
Or voting rights.
and now health care rights.

In cases of conflict, I find the common factors are people from EITHER group
A. "don't want the other group"
B. "mandating regulations or deregulations through govt"
C. "they don't consent to" (because they either don't trust A or don't agree to how B is written)

So if we would listen to each other, and work out agreements by consent,
we could develop programs that serve the intended purpose without imposing unintended consequences objected to by one party or another. We need to hear out those objections, and correct what is causing the conflicts.

It is hypocritical to blame one side for imposing in one case, if our side is imposing in another case.

Why not stop the impositions in all cases. Why not resolve conflicts, and either pass laws by agreement, or agree to separate if we can't resolve our differences in beliefs?

Both parties have established democratic structures for representation and passing
resolutions in an agreed platform that all members can reform or amend, add or change.

Why not use those structures to organize citizens by state to develop and fund the programs
they believe represent them WITHOUT CONFLICTING OR IMPOSING on any other groups that believe otherwise?

Surely with our online capacities to organize people, ideas, resources and proposals for reform,
we could set up administrative programs through each party to focus on what each wants to provide.
Each party can be delegated different tasks, develop a solution that works, and offer that to the public to
adopt and expand upon freely, not by force of law.

Why push agenda that is "faith-based".
Why not prove what programs work self-sufficiently and let people choose freely to fund and participate voluntarily?

 

[emilynghiem]

I am asking Luddly Neddite
Do you enforce Constitutional equality equally for all beliefs

Anyone's 'belief' isn't the basis of constitutionality. Rendering your entire basis of argument invalid.

No, but Constitutional restrictions on govt stop at beliefs.

What I'm saying is in cases where BELIEFS ARE INVOLVED
then Govt has a duty to comply with Constitutional protections
and neither establish nor deny the free exercise of beliefs,
nor discriminate on the basis of creeds.

Skylar

Your beliefs are not the law, nor does the law have to accommodate them. You might believe in burning witches but we have laws against such things.

Yes, I'm also saying beliefs cannot be made into law.
But that's what is happening with the BELIEF that health care is a right through govt,
or BELIEF that gay marriage belongs in the public sphere.

These BELIEFS are being made into law against the BELIEFS of people who can't be excluded or discriminated against
without violating Constitutional restriction on govt.

So PaintMyHouse
If the law was passed based on the BELIEF in traditional marriage only, excluding gay marriage,
You'd object right? Even if that law was passed, you'd contest it because it is a belief in conflict right?

This is what I mean, that such BELIEFS cannot be passed as law.

That is the same concept I think you are arguing, that beliefs should not be mandated by law.

Society has a morality. We pass laws that are in in line with said morality. Your morality might be different, we don't care. Where your morality can be accommodated it likely will be but just because you believe something doesn't mean we are going to allow you to act upon said belief if it is in conflict with our communal morality, like the moral stance Serve One, Serve All.

1. How can you determine if the morality is the right one except by including all the people who are supposed to be represented equally.

2.If any group is contesting that they are being excluded, that's not serving all.
That is why the govt is supposed to REDRESS GRIEVANCES so that whatever is left out can be remedied.

Do you agree that is part of the moral base? To resolve grievances where one party is charging an injustice
is occurring and needs to be remedied. And if this injustice is censored from decision making, that is not serving
the entire public but selectively protecting the rights of some while ignoring the rights of others they claim were violated.

Is redressing grievances part of the morality you see in law and govt responsibility?

Do you believe in equal representation and protection of all people under the law,
(regardless of beliefs or creed as long as these do not impose on the beliefs or creeds of others?)

Do you believe in due process of laws BEFORE depriving people of liberty?
(Ie proving that someone committed a crime or abuse before penalizing them with a regulatory correction,
and not punishing someone in advance like assuming all Arabs are potential terrorists or all Blacks are potential thugs)

Is this part of your moral code to treat all people with equal rights and protections unless they commit a crime or abuse meriting loss of liberty? PaintMyHouse

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Why not prove what programs work self-sufficiently and let people choose freely to fund and participate voluntarily?

PA laws were proven to work, decades ago. Oppose them all you wish but it's the law of the land, and that's good for society.

You seem to want to live in a democracy, and you don't.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

1. How can you determine if the morality is the right one except by including all the people who are supposed to be represented equally.

Not necessary. All beliefs are not equal, and you don't live in a democracy.

 

[Syriusly]

As arguments near Justice Ginsburg has already made up her mind on gay marriage

I find there are
1. people who believe in gay marriage
2. people who don't
3. people who don't believe in it but are willing to let other people have that through the state
4. people who believe in gay marriage, but not to the point of imposing it through the state when others don't believe in this

Why can't we admit there are DIFFERENT beliefs about this?

Is there any HONEST official in government willing to accept the REALITY that
everyone has a right to their beliefs, but GOVT CANNOT BE ABUSED to ESTABLISH any of these views
IN CONFLICT WITH OTHERS.

Because each person has equal right to their BELIEFS I agree with
A. Oklahoma's approach of removing marriage from the state and keeping it to the churches or private sector
B. Another state that neither made gay marriage banned or illegal, but didn't endorse it either.
C. Leaving it to the people of each state to find ways where both views can be equally accommodated.

But if the conflict can't be resolved per state, taking the same unresolved conflict of beliefs to federal govt
isn't going to solve the problem. Because both sides still have equal rights to their beliefs!

Emily

How does allowing 2 gay persons marry intrude on the belief of anyone not getting married?

The Supreme Court will not be deciding on whether or not you have a right to your belief in whatever, they will be deciding whether the right to marriage extends to a same gender couple.

The courts decide constitutional issues- the Supreme Court has decided on marriage issues at least 3 times before- imposing the Constitution on State laws.

And by the way- I could take your post- swap out 'gay marriage' for 'mixed race marriage' and your entire post would have been applicable in 1964.

 

[Syriusly]

I believe in equality.

2. or if people AGREE to have marriage through the state open to all, including homosexual couples, also AGREEING to allow free expressions of Christmas, God and Jesus, prayers and Bibles, crosses and Nativity scenes, creation taught in schools and allowed in public institutions as references (as long as these are NOT forced on people in any abusive way, and the same with not forcing homosexuality on people but allowing people of these beliefs to express them freely as what Christians ask for Christianity).]

Why do you insist on equating 'gay marriage' with 'nativity scenes"?
Would you be comfortable with a 'gay nativity' scene in the public square?

And why exactly are all of your examples Christian only? What about Jews- Buddhists- Muslims- Satanists- Jains- and every other religious offshoot under the son?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Where did you guys get the idea that because a few people want their kids to believe the earth is flat we're supposed to stop teaching that the earth is round? You might as well be carrying a sign that says "I want my right to burn witches". Yeah, ain't gonna happen, you will just have to express your belief in your head, society has moved on.

 

[Syriusly]

I believe in equality.

Unless you disagree with them, then BAKE THAT DAMN CAKE

Public Accommodation laws...serving customers despite their "deeply held religious beliefs" since 1964.

Comparing the gross injustices of separate economic systems enforced by law during Jim Crow, and a couple having to spend 1/2 an hour finding another, equivalent baker is comical to say the least.

Not realizing that at their core- discrimination is still discrimination- and can always be justified as 'a matter of faith' is even more comical.

 

[Skylar]

1. How can you determine if the morality is the right one except by including all the people who are supposed to be represented equally.

Voting and a judiciary that acts as a stop gap against the tyranny of the majority.

Not all beliefs are equally compatible with the will of the electorate or the constitution. Those that are are enforced. Those that aren't are discarded. Says who? Says us. Either directly or through our representatives.

2.If any group is contesting that they are being excluded, that's not serving all.

Sure it is. As 'contesting' something doesn't mean what they are claiming is accurate. You're accepting any belief as factually valid. And the basis of changing our laws. You've imagined mere belief of any individual on any topic to be the supreme arbiter of all law and constitutionality.

That's simply not the case. Nor ever has been. Not in our era, not in the era of the founders.

Do you agree that is part of the moral base? To resolve grievances where one party is charging an injustice
is occurring and needs to be remedied. And if this injustice is censored from decision making, that is not serving the entire public but selectively protecting the rights of some while ignoring the rights of others they claim were violated.

The first amendment guarantees the right to petition the government for redress. It doesn't guarantee that any charge, belief or allegation will be accepted and any resolution demanded will be provided. You're equating the government rejecting an allegation as invalid as being the same as the government refusing to hear a petition.

They aren't the same thing. And its only the latter that is constitutionally significant. Which is why your argument doesn't work.

 

[Syriusly]

5. Let each State decide. This is not a U.S. Constitutional issue.

Rather late for that- since the issue goes to the Supreme Court starts hearing this tomorrow.

 

[emilynghiem]

Why not prove what programs work self-sufficiently and let people choose freely to fund and participate voluntarily?

PA laws were proven to work, decades ago. Oppose them all you wish but it's the law of the land, and that's good for society.

You seem to want to live in a democracy, and you don't.

PaintMyHouse
1. We can have both. Because our culture, access to technology, and school system in every district has expanded,
everyone can potentially participate as directly as they want to.
And still have a representative democracy that administers the formal laws, reforms and rulings.
The input CONSENT and conflict resolution process CAN be facilitated democratically,
given the resources and facilities we have now, including the internet, if these are used EFFECTIVELY
by using them to RESOLVE conflicts to focus on SOLUTIONS that all sides AGREE UPON
instead of fighting over propaganda and conflicts and wasting resources lobbying where we disagree.

2. What PA laws are you referring to.
do you have links or summary please?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Why not prove what programs work self-sufficiently and let people choose freely to fund and participate voluntarily?

PA laws were proven to work, decades ago. Oppose them all you wish but it's the law of the land, and that's good for society.

You seem to want to live in a democracy, and you don't.

PaintMyHouse
1. We can have both. Because our culture, access to technology, and school system in every district has expanded,
everyone can potentially participate as directly as they want to.
And still have a representative democracy that administers the formal laws, reforms and rulings.
The input CONSENT and conflict resolution process CAN be facilitated democratically,
given the resources and facilities we have now, including the internet, if these are used EFFECTIVELY
by using them to RESOLVE conflicts to focus on SOLUTIONS that all sides AGREE UPON
instead of fighting over propaganda and conflicts and wasting resources lobbying where we disagree.

2. What PA laws are you referring to.
do you have links or summary please?

The consent of the people. especially about the rights of others, is not required. To understand PA laws, start here: Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[Syriusly]

Your beliefs are not the law, nor does the law have to accommodate them. You might believe in burning witches but we have laws against such things.

How about the Religious Belief against serving in the United States Military?

We give Conscientious Objectors the benefit of the doubt.

You're just an asshole

and a scumbag

What a foul mouthed small penis you are.

 

[Edgetho]

What a foul mouthed small penis you are.

I told her not tell you...... dayum

 

[Syriusly]

What a foul mouthed small penis you are.

I told her not tell you...... dayum

You posted without swearing

I didn't know you had it in you.