Same bullshit, different decade: What members of the gay rights movement could learn from history

[TemplarKormac]

Jesus didn't write the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights. We, the People are NOT a theocracy.

But what you fail to realize is that it was also written to protect freedom, gay rights/ marriage AND religious freedom.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals.

And this statement all but reveals your ignorance of liberalism, and history. The liberal you are, and what the liberals in our early American history were are light years apart. Classical liberalism maximized individual freedom, including those freedoms granted to the religious. Modern liberals like you see religious belief as an affront to the freedom of a certain segment of people, and as such it must be tempered to preserve the freedom of those few. But classical liberals worked to preserve freedom for all individuals. It didn't engage in this "selective freedom" bullshit you espouse to.

The term "liberal" has the root word "liberty" which in and of itself implies lack of restriction. The word liberalism itself also comes from the same root as liberty. It has meanings of openness to change and a lack of restriction. Over time though, people like you have changed your ideas of what restricts and what doesn't.

Conservatives are, for the most part, reactionaries, opposed to, and fearful of, change.

As a consequence they will seek to disadvantage those whom they perceive as a 'threat' to society, such as same-sex couples seeking to marry.

Liberals, unlike most conservatives, embrace change, celebrate diversity, and advocate for the civil rights of all Americans, including gay Americans.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Jesus didn't write the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights. We, the People are NOT a theocracy.

But what you fail to realize is that it was also written to protect freedom, gay rights/ marriage AND religious freedom.

it was not written to protect discrimination.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Conservatives are, for the most part, reactionaries, opposed to, and fearful of, change.

Liberals are reactionaries. They oppose change they don't like.

As a consequence they will seek to disadvantage those whom they perceive as a 'threat' to society, such as same-sex couples seeking to marry.

Who said anything about gays being a threat? I didn't.

Liberals, unlike most conservatives, embrace change, celebrate diversity, and advocate for the civil rights of all Americans, including gay Americans.

Let's break this falsity down into its components.

First, that Liberals "embrace change"

No they don't. They force change. Any other form of change contrary to theirs is worthy to be crushed.

Second, that Liberals "celebrate diversity"

No they don't. The hostility they display to whites, southerners, conservative men and women, conservative blacks (men and women), Christians and Jews attests otherwise. There is no diversity among you and your ilk. Just hostility to opposing thought.

Third and lastly, that Liberals "advocate for the civil rights of all Americans"

No they don't. Liberals were the ones who instituted a policy of "affirmative action" in our colleges and schools, a form of institutional racism. This denied the basic civil right of an education to more than deserving applicants.

Sorry. Liberals do nothing regarding to what they supposedly stand for.

 

[TemplarKormac]

it was not written to protect discrimination.

So, discrimination can be that which a religious business owner refuses to cater to or be part of something he deems religiously offensive

Yet, justice, according to you, is forcing him to be a part of something that violates his faith. How is that not discrimination also?

 

[LeftofLeft]

Jesus never preached about giving to the State to carry out HIS work. Why can't you Liberals comprehend that?

Jesus didn't write the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights. We, the People are NOT a theocracy.

You are saying that Christians should put The Constitution above Jesus?? Which is the higher priority for Christians?

So, if you are going to hold Christians accountable to the teachings of Jesus Christ, should Christians put Jesus first or turn to We The People for guidance on Jesus? Who ranks higher, WE THE PEOPLE's GOVERNMENT or Jesus?

Let's see..

I vote for the one that is not a myth

Which one is the myth? Teachings of Jesus or We The People's Government?

Let's go with you and your belief for a second. Where did Jesus say not to bake cakes for gay people?

When Conservative Christians question how much money is being asked of them to the State, liberals remind them the need to be more giving as Jesus said. Jesus did say we need to give to the Church and to the poor. So, it is the liberals that insert the State, not Jesus. So why are you bringing up baking cakes for gay people?

What difference does it make as long as the poor are taken care of?

Which Poor are you talking about; the State's poor that get cell phones and big screen TVs after the bloated bureaucracy and union cronies have been paid out or the poor you meet directly in the street or read about around the world that are truly starving. Who should get that money first, according to Jesus?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You claiming that the level of hardships is what "earns" civil rights for a group of citizens? That if one has not "suffered as much" as blacks did during their civil rights struggle, it doesn't count?

Obviously the gays are ...since they latched on to the black civil rights movement to make it seem like their plight is worse than it is.

Nonsense.

Gay Americans are entitled to the same Constitutional protections as everyone else, separate and apart from any other class of persons – the right to due process and the right to equal protection of the law, where seeking to deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they're eligible to participate in violates the 14th Amendment.

What constitutional protections do they not have?

A woman does not have the right to marry a woman. Men have that right. That is gender discrimination.

Work on that one awhile until it's fully digested and then I'll feed you another one.

But anyone has the "right" to redefine a word

it was not written to protect discrimination.

So, discrimination can be that which a religious business owner refuses to cater to or be part of something he deems religiously offensive

Yet, justice, according to you, is forcing him to be a part of something that violates his faith. How is that not discrimination also?

Faith is just a personal opinion. Your personal opinion cannot be acted upon if it violates the rights of others.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There is nothing special about claiming your beliefs come from a God.

Killing someone because God told you to do it is not going to save you from the hangman, figuratively speaking.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Paul Jennings Hill killed an abortion doctor. His motivation/justification was entirely based on his religious beliefs.

He was put to death by lethal injection in 2003. By TemplarKormac's reasoning, he should be a free man,

enjoying the tolerance of liberals everywhere.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Your personal opinion cannot be acted upon if it violates the rights of others

There's a difference between personal opinion and religious belief. Or did you not know that? Religious belief is actionable in where the person works to obey religious teachings.

But personal opinion is no excuse for negative behavior, but wait, liberals are good at that aren't they?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Paul Jennings Hill killed an abortion doctor. His motivation/justification was entirely based on his religious beliefs.

Paul Jennings wasn't a business owner. Nice try. There is a reason PC calls you "NY Liar" because, you are a liar. And this dishonest analogy is proof of such.

He was put to death by lethal injection in 2003. By TemplarKormac's reasoning, he should be a free man,

By my reasoning the man is a murderer who contorted the tenets of his faith to kill an innocent practitioner. He deserves to be dead for what he did.

enjoying the tolerance of liberals everywhere.

Assuming liberals are tolerant...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

it was not written to protect discrimination.

So, discrimination can be that which a religious business owner refuses to cater to or be part of something he deems religiously offensive

Yet, justice, according to you, is forcing him to be a part of something that violates his faith. How is that not discrimination also?

It is not discrimination because a just, proper, and Constitutional law, such as state and local public accommodations laws, may not be ignored or violated using 'religious belief' as 'justification' for doing so.

In addition, a just, proper, and Constitutional law, such as state and local public accommodations laws, do not 'violate' the religious liberty of those subject to the law, where no Free Exercise Clause violation exists, and where no discrimination has occurred:

“[T]he [Free Exercise] Clause does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a law that incidentally forbids (or requires) the performance of an act that his religious belief requires (or forbids) if the law is not specifically directed to religious practice and is otherwise constitutional as applied to those who engage in the specified act for nonreligious reasons.
[...]
We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.”

Employment Division v. Smith US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Public accommodations laws are regulatory measures, as authorized by the Commerce Clause, their intent is not to disadvantage or prohibit religious practice, where requiring a business owner to accommodate gay patrons is in no way discriminatory, nor does such a requirement constitute a 'violation' of religious liberty.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

TEMPLARKORMAC SAID:

“There's a difference between personal opinion and religious belief.”

Yet both are equally subjective, and both just as irrelevant legally and Constitutionally.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Yet both are equally subjective, and both just as irrelevant legally and Constitutionally.

WRONG

Religious belief and personal opinion are covered under the 1st Amendment and are both otherwise known as "free expression." That makes them both legally and constitutionally relevant. If you are as competent with case law as you think you are, you know there are a litany of SCOTUS opinions backing me up here.

 

[Skylar]

Yet both are equally subjective, and both just as irrelevant legally and Constitutionally.

WRONG

Religious belief and personal opinion are covered under the 1st Amendment and are both otherwise known as "free expression." That makes them both legally and constitutionally relevant. If you are as competent with case law as you think you are, you know there are a litany of SCOTUS opinions backing me up here.

So what laws couldn't you ignore because of 'free expression'? Who couldn't you deny service to based on your 'religious belief'.

Or are you just making a generic 'Sovereign Citizen' argument where no law that a person disagrees with apples to them?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Yet both are equally subjective, and both just as irrelevant legally and Constitutionally.

WRONG

Religious belief and personal opinion are covered under the 1st Amendment and are both otherwise known as "free expression." That makes them both legally and constitutionally relevant. If you are as competent with case law as you think you are, you know there are a litany of SCOTUS opinions backing me up here.

So what laws couldn't you ignore because of 'free expression'? Who couldn't you deny service to based on your 'religious belief'.

Or are you just making a generic 'Sovereign Citizen' argument where no law that a person disagrees with apples to them?

I think TK should reject the law of gravity, it's highly oppressive after all, and then try it out from a tall building, if he can ever get out of the basement that long of course.

 

[Bfgrn]

The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals.

And this statement all but reveals your ignorance of liberalism, and history. The liberal you are, and what the liberals in our early American history were are light years apart. Classical liberalism maximized individual freedom, including those freedoms granted to the religious. Modern liberals like you see religious belief as an affront to the freedom of a certain segment of people, and as such it must be tempered to preserve the freedom of those few. But classical liberals worked to preserve freedom for all individuals. It didn't engage in this "selective freedom" bullshit you espouse to.

The term "liberal" has the root word "liberty" which in and of itself implies lack of restriction. The word liberalism itself also comes from the same root as liberty. It has meanings of openness to change and a lack of restriction. Over time though, people like you have changed your ideas of what restricts and what doesn't.

You are an expert in practicing "selective freedom"... you support States enacting laws to protect Christian bakeries from serving gays. But when I rightfully questioned whether that same law could be used by EMT's, firemen, police officers and doctors to deny service to gays you falsely accused me of dishonesty.

The funny thing is your statement below "trapped" yourself. And you unwittingly admit that you are not about "religious freedom"...you are defending discrimination.

TemplarKormac said:

You utterly and miserably failed in your attempt to "expand" on my premise. Because my premise wasn't meant to be "expanded" upon. Surely you are smart enough to know that my premise is limited to a unique set of circumstances; to a certain set of people and events, none of them relating to the activities of our first responders. You knew before you typed the first letter of your post that our first responders never think in such a discriminatory manner. You hoped to trap me within my own logic. Well, nice try.

The Left Loses Ground... Page 149 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[LoneLaugher]

The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals.

And this statement all but reveals your ignorance of liberalism, and history. The liberal you are, and what the liberals in our early American history were are light years apart. Classical liberalism maximized individual freedom, including those freedoms granted to the religious. Modern liberals like you see religious belief as an affront to the freedom of a certain segment of people, and as such it must be tempered to preserve the freedom of those few. But classical liberals worked to preserve freedom for all individuals. It didn't engage in this "selective freedom" bullshit you espouse to.

The term "liberal" has the root word "liberty" which in and of itself implies lack of restriction. The word liberalism itself also comes from the same root as liberty. It has meanings of openness to change and a lack of restriction. Over time though, people like you have changed your ideas of what restricts and what doesn't.

You are an expert in practicing "selective freedom"... you support States enacting laws to protect Christian bakeries from serving gays. But when I rightfully questioned whether that same law could be used by EMT's, firemen, police officers and doctors to deny service to gays you falsely accused me of dishonesty.

The funny thing is your statement below "trapped" yourself. And you unwittingly admit that you are not about "religious freedom"...you are defending discrimination.

TemplarKormac said:

You utterly and miserably failed in your attempt to "expand" on my premise. Because my premise wasn't meant to be "expanded" upon. Surely you are smart enough to know that my premise is limited to a unique set of circumstances; to a certain set of people and events, none of them relating to the activities of our first responders. You knew before you typed the first letter of your post that our first responders never think in such a discriminatory manner. You hoped to trap me within my own logic. Well, nice try.

The Left Loses Ground... Page 149 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Trap him within his own logic? No! Have mercy on him. Nobody deserves such a fate!

 

[The Rabbi]

The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals.

And this statement all but reveals your ignorance of liberalism, and history. The liberal you are, and what the liberals in our early American history were are light years apart. Classical liberalism maximized individual freedom, including those freedoms granted to the religious. Modern liberals like you see religious belief as an affront to the freedom of a certain segment of people, and as such it must be tempered to preserve the freedom of those few. But classical liberals worked to preserve freedom for all individuals. It didn't engage in this "selective freedom" bullshit you espouse to.

The term "liberal" has the root word "liberty" which in and of itself implies lack of restriction. The word liberalism itself also comes from the same root as liberty. It has meanings of openness to change and a lack of restriction. Over time though, people like you have changed your ideas of what restricts and what doesn't.

You are an expert in practicing "selective freedom"... you support States enacting laws to protect Christian bakeries from serving gays. But when I rightfully questioned whether that same law could be used by EMT's, firemen, police officers and doctors to deny service to gays you falsely accused me of dishonesty.

The funny thing is your statement below "trapped" yourself. And you unwittingly admit that you are not about "religious freedom"...you are defending discrimination.

TemplarKormac said:

You utterly and miserably failed in your attempt to "expand" on my premise. Because my premise wasn't meant to be "expanded" upon. Surely you are smart enough to know that my premise is limited to a unique set of circumstances; to a certain set of people and events, none of them relating to the activities of our first responders. You knew before you typed the first letter of your post that our first responders never think in such a discriminatory manner. You hoped to trap me within my own logic. Well, nice try.

The Left Loses Ground... Page 149 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Your argument is typically dishonest and flawed. You'll need to do better if you want to run with the big boys.

 

[Bfgrn]

The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals.

And this statement all but reveals your ignorance of liberalism, and history. The liberal you are, and what the liberals in our early American history were are light years apart. Classical liberalism maximized individual freedom, including those freedoms granted to the religious. Modern liberals like you see religious belief as an affront to the freedom of a certain segment of people, and as such it must be tempered to preserve the freedom of those few. But classical liberals worked to preserve freedom for all individuals. It didn't engage in this "selective freedom" bullshit you espouse to.

The term "liberal" has the root word "liberty" which in and of itself implies lack of restriction. The word liberalism itself also comes from the same root as liberty. It has meanings of openness to change and a lack of restriction. Over time though, people like you have changed your ideas of what restricts and what doesn't.

Our founding fathers were not "classical liberals", and definitely not neo-classical liberals.

In the late 19th century, classical liberalism developed into neo-classical liberalism, which argued for government to be as small as possible to allow the exercise of individual freedom. In its most extreme form, it advocated Social Darwinism. Right-libertarianism is a modern form of neo-classical liberalism.