"..Marriage has always been between a man and a woman."

[Seawytch]

You are talking about customers. In the other cases a person is being forced to either work an event they do not approve of, an event all about a lifestyle they do not approve of, or go out of business.

All the deflecting your side has to do shows you have no point of logic, just emotion and a selfish need for approval.

A customer is a customer a business is a business. If you want to be in the business of legal discrimination, you have to be a church.

your point was about customer-customer interaction, which is not related to the debate in this thread. Again, a deflection because you have nothing better.

Any person should be able to have their right of association upheld, unless it involves the government or a government contract.

Then why aren't you repealing all public accommodation laws instead of just getting your jesus jammies in a wad because the gheys are now protected by them? You right to association applies to private clubs. You don't want to associate with "those people", then start a private club or a church but when you do business in the public sphere, there are laws you must abide by. Some states include the gheys in those laws.

 

[martybegan]

A customer is a customer a business is a business. If you want to be in the business of legal discrimination, you have to be a church.

your point was about customer-customer interaction, which is not related to the debate in this thread. Again, a deflection because you have nothing better.

Any person should be able to have their right of association upheld, unless it involves the government or a government contract.

Then why aren't you repealing all public accommodation laws instead of just getting your jesus jammies in a wad because the gheys are now protected by them? You right to association applies to private clubs. You don't want to associate with "those people", then start a private club or a church but when you do business in the public sphere, there are laws you must abide by. Some states include the gheys in those laws.

I would if I could. let the market handle it.

Its not about association, its about being forced to work at an event you dont approve of or be forced out of business. As written public accommodation laws were about not being able to refuse a person in an establishment you WALK IN TO to receive the same service. It was never meant to cover on demand services that require the people involved to interact with something they do not approve of.

 

[KevinWestern]

Where is the government telling anyone who they can or cannot love? I know many people not married that love each other.

STILL....., why do gays want to get married ???????

why can't they just love and live together without the marriage banner over their bedroom doorway ?

many hetro couples live this way and have children together, with marriage far from their minds.

gays being "married" will not produce any damn thing nor does it prove any damn thing.


just my OPINION !!

They want to get married for the same reason as hetero couples do. If I can't produce sperm and my wife is fertilized in vitro, I will automatically become the legal guardian. With a non-married couple, a social services employee would need to come out (which costs lots of $) and evaluate the situation (over a number of months) before granting custody to the spouse.

Too, if I ever get into an accident and cannot answer for myself (hopefully, temporarily lol), my wife can step in without issue and access all my medical records, make decisions, etc. With a non-married civil union couple, this is much, much trickier and can often leave a person in a position where the state - and not the significant other - is making the decisions. How awful would that be knowing you cannot make a decision for your injured spouse, and the state instead was taking control?

Just a few of the reasons.

I've long been a proponent for having the state ONLY provide civil unions for all which are wholly equal in every legal way, and then leave it up to the private individual to define "marriage" (via a church, community center, etc). Wouldn't that be reasonable?

 

[KevinWestern]

Every trend starts with a few cases. Look at the inquisition going on with the Modzilla guy.

But the two states that this occurred in were states where gay marriage was explicitly banned. Gay people have been living there for a long time, and these are the only such cases I've ever heard of.

 

[GISMYS]

SICK SEXUAL PERVERSION was is and forever will be an ABOMINATION.==Men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved. Romans 1:27

 

[KevinWestern]

SICK SEXUAL PERVERSION was is and forever will be an ABOMINATION.==Men, instead of having normal sexual relations with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men, and as a result of this sin, they suffered within themselves the penalty they deserved. Romans 1:27

GISMYS, I'm sure you mean well but I'll tell you right now you're not adding much to any of these threads. You don't have to speak ONLY in Bible verses, you know, lol.

 

[Silhouette]

Even Keven Western can see that GISMYS is some militant gay's sock puppet playing the parody on the bible thumper..

So your argument is that the people who use 'redefining marriage' as an argument AGAINST same sex monogamy are simultaneously making an argument FOR legal civil polygamy?

Because afterall, even the Bible defines marriage as both monogamy and polygamy...

The Bible also mentions something about homosexual pairings. It says they are an abomination in the eyes of God. It says that any christian who idlly stands by or otherwise enables the expansion of a homosexual cutlure or cult or agenda will be damned to the pit of fire for eternity along with the homosexuals.

It's nothing personal . it's just that God knows about monkey see, monkey do and doesn't want to have another Ancient Greece on Its hands....you know, where most of the adult men were "gay" and began "tampering with" younger and younger boys until the norm became adult men taking boys as young as 6 from their mothers as personal sodomizing toys. They did this to induct them into "the proper sexuality for the day". And it worked. Normally hetero boys grew up tampered with to do the same to other boys when they became adult men.

This is the type of thing the Bible forbids and decent people become revulsed at.

The sudden and rapid rise of boys ages 13-24 coming down with HIV in recent years is no coincidence. Gay marriage "normalizing" what gays do has had its casualties...

 

[GISMYS]

so your argument is that the people who use 'redefining marriage' as an argument against same sex monogamy are simultaneously making an argument for legal civil polygamy?

Because afterall, even the bible defines marriage as both monogamy and polygamy...

the bible also mentions something about homosexual pairings. It says they are an abomination in the eyes of god. It says that any christian who idlly stands by or otherwise enables the expansion of a homosexual cutlure or cult or agenda will be damned to the pit of fire for eternity along with the homosexuals.

It's nothing personal . It's just that god knows about monkey see, monkey do and doesn't want to have another ancient greece on its hands....you know, where most of the adult men were "gay" and began "tampering with" younger and younger boys until the norm became adult men taking boys as young as 6 from their mothers as personal sodomizing toys. They did this to induct them into "the proper sexuality for the day". And it worked. Normally hetero boys grew up tampered with to do the same to other boys when they became adult men.

This is the type of thing the bible forbids and decent people become revulsed at.

The sudden and rapid rise of boys ages 13-24 coming down with hiv in recent years is no coincidence. Gay marriage "normalizing" what gays do has had its casualties...

40 million + dead from aids another 40,000,000+ hiv positive for what??? Sick minded sexual perversion!!

 

[martybegan]

Every trend starts with a few cases. Look at the inquisition going on with the Modzilla guy.

But the two states that this occurred in were states where gay marriage was explicitly banned. Gay people have been living there for a long time, and these are the only such cases I've ever heard of.

yep, and if they can pass in these states, it will be even easier to sue people into destitution in states where the marriages are legally binding.

 

[KevinWestern]

Every trend starts with a few cases. Look at the inquisition going on with the Modzilla guy.

But the two states that this occurred in were states where gay marriage was explicitly banned. Gay people have been living there for a long time, and these are the only such cases I've ever heard of.

yep, and if they can pass in these states, it will be even easier to sue people into destitution in states where the marriages are legally binding.

Do we have any evidence backing that claim up? Meaning, once a state legalizes gay marriage, are we seeing the number of these incidences (perhaps measured by court cases) rise?

I know there are quite a few states where gay marriage is officially recognized, legally, and some states have been this way for years now.

 

[martybegan]

But the two states that this occurred in were states where gay marriage was explicitly banned. Gay people have been living there for a long time, and these are the only such cases I've ever heard of.

yep, and if they can pass in these states, it will be even easier to sue people into destitution in states where the marriages are legally binding.

Do we have any evidence backing that claim up? Meaning, once a state legalizes gay marriage, are we seeing the number of these incidences (perhaps measured by court cases) rise?

I know there are quite a few states where gay marriage is officially recognized, legally, and some states have been this way for years now.

Considering how new all this is, and how long cases take to go through the legal system, there is no data I know of. My view is an opinion, and I have not made any claim to the contrary.

 

[Silhouette]

Do we have any evidence backing that claim up? Meaning, once a state legalizes gay marriage, are we seeing the number of these incidences (perhaps measured by court cases) rise?

I know there are quite a few states where gay marriage is officially recognized, legally, and some states have been this way for years now.

Are you serious?

There are only three states where the consensus allows gay marriage. All the rest do not. Regardless of what one activist judge says, Windsor has constitutionally-upheld that each state may choose via consensus whether or not to allow gay marriage or any other type of oddball marriage such as first cousins or 13 year olds.

So far the number of states where gay marriage will pan out to be legal upon the SCOTUS challenges for not being more clear in a public statement about what Windsor really means is "3". Just 3 states have voted to allow people of the same gender to play at husband and wife in "marriage".

 

[KevinWestern]

Do we have any evidence backing that claim up? Meaning, once a state legalizes gay marriage, are we seeing the number of these incidences (perhaps measured by court cases) rise?

I know there are quite a few states where gay marriage is officially recognized, legally, and some states have been this way for years now.

Are you serious?

There are only three states where the consensus allows gay marriage. All the rest do not. Regardless of what one activist judge says, Windsor has constitutionally-upheld that each state may choose via consensus whether or not to allow gay marriage or any other type of oddball marriage such as first cousins or 13 year olds.

So far the number of states where gay marriage will pan out to be legal upon the SCOTUS challenges for not being more clear in a public statement about what Windsor really means is "3". Just 3 states have voted to allow people of the same gender to play at husband and wife in "marriage".

Do you know what we're talking about?

Marty said that when gay marriage is legalized, the number of incidences where businesses are sued for not serving gays will rise.

I said the only cases I've heard so far are from Colorado and Arizona - both of which have bans on same sex marriage - and thus his assertion doesn't seem to be supported by the facts.

 

[KevinWestern]

yep, and if they can pass in these states, it will be even easier to sue people into destitution in states where the marriages are legally binding.

Do we have any evidence backing that claim up? Meaning, once a state legalizes gay marriage, are we seeing the number of these incidences (perhaps measured by court cases) rise?

I know there are quite a few states where gay marriage is officially recognized, legally, and some states have been this way for years now.

Considering how new all this is, and how long cases take to go through the legal system, there is no data I know of. My view is an opinion, and I have not made any claim to the contrary.

Fair enough.

 

[Silhouette]

I know what you were talking about. I want to make sure that people know that the number of states that have actual legal gay marriage is 3. The rest are being seditiously oppressed by rogue judges. These judges are attempting to override the Windsor finding last Summer that Upheld constitutionally that each state's internal citizen's consensus gets to decide "yes" or "no" on gay marriage or other marriages that are odd or unusual such as first cousins or 13 year olds. They are doing so illegally and in contempt of the US Supreme Court and the rights of the states.

That fact needs to be the premise of any other discussion that follows.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It did with the photographer's Business.

Actually not.

Whatever happened to the New Mexico photographer was solely the responsibility of the business owner, having nothing to do with New Mexico’s public accommodations laws, which were determined to be proper, appropriate, and Constitutional.

Businesses are subject to all manner of regulatory policy, and business owners are not in a position to decide what laws and policies they’ll obey and what laws and policies they’ll ignore. It is simply the nature of conducting business today, where business owners need to conduct themselves as responsible professionals, and accommodate the customers who seek their goods and services in a responsible, professional manner.

Citizens united has been found to be proper, appropriate and constitutional, same as the recent court decision. I guess that means you find both acceptable.

The point is this particular regulatory policy is idiotic, serves none of the public interest, and creates a situation where people have to either ignore their moral compass or go out of business.

This is all about progressives not being able to stand people with opposing belief structures, nothing more.

You can't let every person be his own law.

 

[martybegan]

Actually not.

Whatever happened to the New Mexico photographer was solely the responsibility of the business owner, having nothing to do with New Mexico’s public accommodations laws, which were determined to be proper, appropriate, and Constitutional.

Businesses are subject to all manner of regulatory policy, and business owners are not in a position to decide what laws and policies they’ll obey and what laws and policies they’ll ignore. It is simply the nature of conducting business today, where business owners need to conduct themselves as responsible professionals, and accommodate the customers who seek their goods and services in a responsible, professional manner.

Citizens united has been found to be proper, appropriate and constitutional, same as the recent court decision. I guess that means you find both acceptable.

The point is this particular regulatory policy is idiotic, serves none of the public interest, and creates a situation where people have to either ignore their moral compass or go out of business.

This is all about progressives not being able to stand people with opposing belief structures, nothing more.

You can't let every person be his own law.

What? How is a private business deciding who they want as customers be their own law? Are they stopping said customers from going to more accommodating businesses? Is the government somehow involved?

your statement doesn't make any sense.

 

[KevinWestern]

I know what you were talking about. I want to make sure that people know that the number of states that have actual legal gay marriage is 3. The rest are being seditiously oppressed by rogue judges. These judges are attempting to override the Windsor finding last Summer that Upheld constitutionally that each state's internal citizen's consensus gets to decide "yes" or "no" on gay marriage or other marriages that are odd or unusual such as first cousins or 13 year olds. They are doing so illegally and in contempt of the US Supreme Court and the rights of the states.

That fact needs to be the premise of any other discussion that follows.

Well, in the context of this argument, whether or not you believe that gay marriage was legalized legitimately is sort of irrelevant (again, in the context of this argument). Not saying your fact isn't important and relevant elsewhere.

Marty is saying that when gay marriage is considered legal by the court system, it is easier for those couples to bring discrimination charges against businesses in that state. So regardless of what you said above, gay marriage is still legal - in the eyes of the court - in over 17 states I believe.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The lawsuits occurred in states that have banned marriage equality. Public accommodation laws are unrelated to marriage equality. Public accommodation laws didn't really garner a lot of attention either...until they started applying to "they gheys".

its all the same fascist wave.

Oh puhleese. Public accommodation = fascism?

Began wants American businesses to be allowed by the government to do what German businesses were allowed to do to the Jews under Nazism,

and you're fascist for opposing that.

That's classic USMB comedy gold.

 

[Silhouette]

The nazi metaphor is all mixed up. Forcing christians to abandon their faith and be damned to hell for enabling a homosexual cultural spread is akin to the nazis forcing their "state-utopia" on the jews.

Well, in the context of this argument, whether or not you believe that gay marriage was legalized legitimately is sort of irrelevant (again, in the context of this argument). Not saying your fact isn't important and relevant elsewhere.

Marty is saying that when gay marriage is considered legal by the court system, it is easier for those couples to bring discrimination charges against businesses in that state. So regardless of what you said above, gay marriage is still legal - in the eyes of the court - in over 17 states I believe.

No, gay marraige is NOT "still legal" in 17 states. I'm not sure what universe you live in where you imagine that there is a legal authority higher than the US Supreme Court? They have said just last Summer no less, that the "unquestioned authority" of defining marriage lies within the broad consensus of each of the sovereign states. They iterated and reiterated that point over and over again. They said this was true retroactive to the founding of the country "in the way the Framers of the Constitution intended".

That is what is called a "constitutional-finding". Denying a state's consensus on gay marraige, therefore, is contempt of the US Supreme Court and is illegal and is no more binding that if a hedgehog stood up and declared it.

Ergo, only 3 states have legal gay marriage. Now, from there, continue the discussion...