Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Skylar]

Targeting unpopular opinion for modification. No one's rights are being violated by someone refusing to serve them.

All you're doing is moving the topic of the question. Eventually you're going to have to answer it.

How is protecting the rights of individuals 'targeting unpopular opinions for modification'?

Do you REALLY think someone has a "right" to demand that someone else serves them against their will??

I think the State has the power to require that a business person treat their customers fairly and equally.

The whole 'we don't serve your kind at this lunch counter' schtick doesn't exactly have the best historical pedigree.

 

[Skylar]

Again, according to the Ninth Amendment.

The Ninth amendment doesn't say that baking is a constitutional right. It doesn't mention baking. It mentions reserve rights. It doesn't say what they are.

So how can you use an amendment that defines nothing as the sole basis of your definition? That's an argument without corners.

 

[dblack]

Again, according to the Ninth Amendment.

The Ninth amendment doesn't say that baking is a constitutional right. It doesn't mention baking. It mentions reserve rights. It doesn't say what they are.

So how can you use an amendment that defines nothing as the sole basis of your definition? That's an argument without corners.

Our founders sought to create a government that maximally protected our freedom, not one that maximally infringed on it, with ten exceptions.

 

[dblack]

Targeting unpopular opinion for modification. No one's rights are being violated by someone refusing to serve them.

All you're doing is moving the topic of the question. Eventually you're going to have to answer it.

How is protecting the rights of individuals 'targeting unpopular opinions for modification'?

Public accommodations laws are not protecting the rights of individuals. That are granting some people, in some circumstances, the power to force others to bend to their will. That has nothing to do with equal rights and everything to do with special interest privilege. It's a radical inversion of the principle of equal protection and ushers in corporatism as its replacement.

Do you REALLY think someone has a "right" to demand that someone else serves them against their will??

I think the State has the power to require that a business person treat their customers fairly and equally.

The whole 'we don't serve your kind at this lunch counter' schtick doesn't exactly have the best historical pedigree.

It sure doesn't. All kinds of ignorance and undesirable preferences exist in society. But do you really want government to be in charge of making our personal decisions for us? How far are you willing to take this notion?

 

[Skylar]

Public accommodations laws are not protecting the rights of individuals. That are granting some people, in some circumstances, the power to force others to bend to their will. That has nothing to do with equal rights and everything to do with special interest privilege. It's a radical inversion of the principle of equal protection and ushers in corporatism as its replacement.

Public accommodating laws are balancing rights. One against another. In the case of religion, that's a pretty powerful right. The hertofore unrecognized by any legal authority 'constitutional right to bake' isn't. You're insisting they are equal. The law doesn't recognize them as such. Nor do the constitutionally delegated authorities on interpreting the constitution.

And given that the 10th amendment grants the States pretty vast power, including the regulation of intrastate commerce, business regulation that require business owners to treat their customers fairly and equally is pretty reasonable, constitutionally speaking.

It sure doesn't. All kinds of ignorance and undesirable preferences exist in society. But do you really want government to be in charge of making our personal decisions for us? How far are you willing to take this notion?

Yet 'get to the back of the bus, ******' is exactly what you're arguing for. And when you do business, your 'personal decisions' are subject to State regulation. Personal decisions within the privacy of your own home are far less effected by government regulation.

 

[Geaux4it]

of course not. If guys want to go to funky town with chickens OK. Just don't ask for benefits associated with marriage.

-Geaux

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Because it is DECEIT... fraudulently advanced as a means to influence the ignorant.

How is protecting the rights of individuals 'deceit, fraudulently advanced as a means to influence the ignorant'?

What rights are being protected?

Understand that protecting rights is the duty of every free sovereign, there is no right to claim that sexual abnormality is normal and force others to accept such, as such.

Just as declaring that there is a right to pretend that one is entitled to force themselves into an institution, which exists only upon the standard which specifically excludes you.

Where OFFICIAL FEDERAL POLICY is based upon ONE DECEIT, that act guides others to rationalize that THE DECEIT THAT SERVES THEIR SUBJECTIVE NEED IS JUST AS WORTHY.

Can you get specific on what 'deceit' you're talking about?

It is not possible to be more SPECIFIC:

Homosexuality is a perversion of human sexuality. The ACCEPTANCE of perversion is PERVERSION. Normalizing perversion, set PERVERSION AS THE PUBLIC STANDARD. There is no potential for viability, through perversion. To suggest otherwise is deceitful... to set public policy upon such is profound deceit.

Sexual abnormality is a function of psychosis... psychosis induces poor judgment, poor judgment induces chaos, calamity and catastrophe, which harms EVERYONE IN THE CULTURE.

Says who?

Says Nature... readily discerned by sound reason.

 

[Skylar]

of course not. If guys want to go to funky town with chickens OK. Just don't ask for benefits associated with marriage.

-Geaux

Why shouldn't gays have the same rights and protections under marriage as anyone else?

 

[Skylar]

\
What rights are being protected?

The right to marry and the right to equal protection under the law guaranteed by the 14th amendment.

Understand that protecting rights is the duty of every free sovereign, there is no right to claim that sexual abnormality is normal and force others to accept such, as such.

Both you and the States are subject to the Constitution, which stands as the supreme law of the land. You may imagine yourself a 'free sovereign'. But that doesn't exempt you from any law. Nor does it exempt the States.

As for your acceptance of homosexuality as 'normal', no one cares, as your personal opinion is legally irrelevant. What is relevant is the law's recognition of the marriages of gays and lesbians as being valid. That's marriage equality.

Your personal beliefs, I leave to you.

Just as declaring that there is a right to pretend that one is entitled to force themselves into an institution, which exists only upon the standard which specifically excludes you.

I'm not quoting myself. I'm quoting the SCOTUS and the Constitution. The former which recognizes the right to marry. And the latter that recognizes equal protection in the law. Both sources are legally authoritative.

Homosexuality is a perversion of human sexuality.

Says who?

Says Nature... readily discerned by sound reason.

Can you quote nature saying this?

 

[dblack]

Public accommodations laws are not protecting the rights of individuals. That are granting some people, in some circumstances, the power to force others to bend to their will. That has nothing to do with equal rights and everything to do with special interest privilege. It's a radical inversion of the principle of equal protection and ushers in corporatism as its replacement.

Public accommodating laws are balancing rights. One against another.

No, they're not. The power to force someone to bake you a cake is not a "right". It's the opposite.

Yet 'get to the back of the bus, ******' is exactly what you're arguing for.

No, it's not. Arguing for the freedom to be bigoted isn't the same thing as advocating for bigotry. This is the same kind of boneheaded demagoguery aimed at anyone who defends the rights of unpopular minorities.

And when you do business, your 'personal decisions' are subject to State regulation. Personal decisions within the privacy of your own home are far less effected by government regulation.

Yes, that's how we've allowed the Commerce Clause to be interpreted - to treat anyone who dares to trade with others as a ward of the state. As if to do so implicitly sacrifices one's individual rights. That's exactly what I'm criticizing. The Commerce Clause was meant to protect us from protectionist tax policy - to give the federal government oversight and authority to prevent the states from 'warring' with each other via tariffs and the like. It wasn't mean to give government the power to dictate our economic decisions.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Public accommodations laws are not protecting the rights of individuals. That are granting some people, in some circumstances, the power to force others to bend to their will. That has nothing to do with equal rights and everything to do with special interest privilege. It's a radical inversion of the principle of equal protection and ushers in corporatism as its replacement.

Public accommodating laws are balancing rights. One against another. In the case of religion, that's a pretty powerful right. The hertofore unrecognized by any legal authority 'constitutional right to bake' isn't. You're insisting they are equal. The law doesn't recognize them as such. Nor do the constitutionally delegated authorities on interpreting the constitution.

PA Laws are LAW. LAW is only legitimate, where it SERVES JUSTICE. There is no justification to refuse to serve another who is offering compensation as required by the service provider, except where the service or sale of one's product serves to undermine the means of another to exercise their own rights. You can't force someone to sell them something or provide them a service that they reasonably know you'll use to harm them... . This of course has no potential bearing on issues of race. And it is the application of laws designed to preclude racial discrimination which are foolishly being used to preclude people from discriminating against those who advocate to normalize sexual abnormality. Such is an UNJUST application of the law.

Unjust application of the law harms EVERYONE.

 

[Skylar]

No, they're not. The power to force someone to bake you a cake is not a "right". It's the opposite.

Its not the gay couple that requires the business person to treat them fairly and equally. Its the State which regulates the business person and all intrastate commerce. Or by extension, local governments which use State authority.

No, it's not. Arguing for the freedom to be bigoted isn't the same thing as advocating for bigotry. This is the same kind of boneheaded demagoguery aimed at anyone who defends the rights of unpopular minorities.

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that you're advocating discrimination. I'm saying that your applying the argument of every bigot, segregationist, and white bus driver telling blacks to get to the back of the bus.

Constitutionally, the argument is crap. The States definitely have the authority to regulate intrastate commerce and require that anyone conducting business in that State treat their customers fairly and equally. And you're going to have a hard time arguing the moral efficacy of treating black people like shit or any other 'we don't serve your kind here' argument. Legally, constitutionally or morally, your argument fails.

If you were arguing the *federal* governments intervention in intrastate issues, I'd be inclined to agree with you on constitutional grounds. But the baker we're discussing is under local law empowered by State government. Which the State has every authority to impose on commerce within its jurisdiction.

Yes, that's how we've allowed the Commerce Clause to be interpreted - to treat anyone who dares to trade with others as a ward of the state.

The baker you're citing is being fined under State laws. Meaning that the commerce clause of the US constitution is irrelevant. The only relevant portion of the Constitution would be the 10th amendment, and depending on State law, the 14th.

 

[Syriusly]

Because the purpose of government is to protect our freedom, not force conformity.

How is protecting rights of the individual 'forcing conformity'?

It's not. Targeting unpopular opinions for modification is. No one's rights are being violated by someone refusing to serve them.

And that's really the crux of this, so let's get into it. Do you REALLY think someone has a "right" to demand that someone else serves them against their will?? You don't see how deeply invasive that is? I really can't get past the basic insanity of that point of view.

That ship sailed a long time ago-

1968: In Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., the Court held that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 bans racial discrimination in housing by private, as well as governmental, housing providers.

 

[Skylar]

PA Laws are LAW. LAW is only legitimate, where it SERVES JUSTICE. There is no justification to refuse to serve another who is offering compensation as required by the service provider, except where the service or sale of one's product serves to undermine the means of another to exercise their own rights.

Our conception of justice is balance. And our conception of rights heavily weights religious practice. A gay couple who is denied the performance of a marriage by a given minister isn't having their right to marriage significantly impacted, as they have thousands of other options, including secular options that cannot deny them.

A minister who is forced to perform a religious ceremony against the tenets of his religion is having his right to religious rights egregiously violated.

When weighing the latter against the former, the weight of justice comes down on the side of religious freedom.

You can't force someone to sell them something or provide them a service that they reasonably know you'll use to harm them.

The State can most definitely establish rules of conduct for commerce practiced within its jurisdiction. As it has power of intrastate commerce within its border. If you want to conduct business within that state, you must abide the regulation the State establishes for fairness and equity in that conduct.

This of course has no potential bearing on issues of race.

Obviously, it does. As many a lunch counter in the South during the era of segregation demonstrated. You're using the exact same argument; the freedom to treat others like shit in business. The State has the authority to regulate business conduct. And in the case of the baker fined for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding, they have.

 

[dblack]

PA Laws are LAW. LAW is only legitimate, where it SERVES JUSTICE. There is no justification to refuse to serve another who is offering compensation as required by the service provider, except where the service or sale of one's product serves to undermine the means of another to exercise their own rights. You can't force someone to sell them something or provide them a service that they reasonably know you'll use to harm them... . This of course has no potential bearing on issues of race. And it is the application of laws designed to preclude racial discrimination which are foolishly being used to preclude people from discriminating against those who advocate to normalize sexual abnormality. Such is an UNJUST application of the law.

Unjust application of the law harms EVERYONE.

This is an excellent point, and highlights a fundamental difference in what we want government to accomplish. And this is why I consider your point of view every bit as wrong as those you oppose. Both of you want to use government to force people to behave the way you want. You just have different idea of how people should behave.

I don't want a government that "creates" justice by dictating how people treat each other. This is why libertarians emphasize the notion that government should seek to protect our freedom to create the kind of society we want, not dictate to us what kind of society that should be.

 

[Skylar]

This is an excellent point, and highlights a fundamental difference in what we want government to accomplish. And this is why I consider your point of view every bit as wrong as those you oppose. Both of you want to use government to force people to behave the way you want. You just have different idea of how people should behave.

In terms of intrastate commerce, the State has the authority to regulate business conduct and require that business owners treat their customers fairly and equally within its jurisdiction. You have yet to even disagree with this point.

Ministers are protected by our constitutionally recognized freedom of free expression of religion. A right which would be egregoiusly violated by being forced to perform a religious ceremony in contradiction of his faith's tenets. You have yet to disagree with this point.

Gays being denied a ceremony by a particular minister aren't having their right to marry significantly impacted as they have thousands of other options, including secular ones that can't deny them. You have yet to disagree with this point.

Our conception of justice is about balance. And the encumbrance of rights by forcing a minister to violate his faith's tenets greatly outweighs that of a gay couple who can use a different minister or a secular justice of the peace. There are not equal. You have yet to disagree with any of these points either.

I don't want a government that "creates" justice by dictating how people treat each other. This is why libertarians emphasize the notion that government should seek to protect our freedom to create the kind of society we want, not dictate to us what kind of society that should be.

You just went meta when the specifics of your argument didn't work out. I'll stay in the trenches of the gay marriage and places of worship debate, thank you. If you'd like to promote libertarianism and its gift basket of system crippling flaws, there are threads galore for you to chose from.

 

[dblack]

This is an excellent point, and highlights a fundamental difference in what we want government to accomplish. And this is why I consider your point of view every bit as wrong as those you oppose. Both of you want to use government to force people to behave the way you want. You just have different idea of how people should behave.

In terms of intrastate commerce, the State has the authority to regulate business conduct and require that business owners treat their customers fairly and equally within its jurisdiction. You have yet to even disagree with this point.

I thought I did, but if not let me address that omission. While our Court has erroneously granted them this authority, it's a grave error. Economic freedom is even more important than religious freedom, and the next great advance in liberalism will be encoding that as a fundamental right.

Gays being denied a ceremony by a particular minister aren't having their right to marry significantly impacted as they have thousands of other options, including secular ones that can't deny them. You have yet to disagree with this point.

Because I don't disagree with this point. But neither is a bakers refusal to bake a cake impacting a gay couple's right to eat cake.

Our conception of justice is about balance. And the encumbrance of rights by forcing a minister to violate his faith's tenets greatly outweighs that of a gay couple who can use a different minister or a secular justice of the peace. There are not equal. You have yet to disagree with any of these points either.

My conception of justice isn't about "balance". Equally violating people's rights is not justice.

I don't want a government that "creates" justice by dictating how people treat each other. This is why libertarians emphasize the notion that government should seek to protect our freedom to create the kind of society we want, not dictate to us what kind of society that should be.

You just went meta when the specifics of your argument didn't work out. I'll stay in the trenches of the gay marriage and places of worship debate, thank you. If you'd like to promote libertarianism and its gift basket of system crippling flaws, there are threads galore for you to chose from.

WTF??

 

[Skylar]

I thought I did, but if not let me address that omission. While our Court has erroneously granted them this authority, it's a grave error. Economic freedom is even more important than religious freedom, and the next great advance in liberalism will be encoding that as a fundamental right.

How were the courts in error in recognizing the State's authority to regulate business within its own jurisdiction?

Because I don't disagree with this point. But neither is a bakers refusal to bake a cake impacting a gay couple's right to eat cake.

Three is no right to 'eat cake' any more than there is a right to bake one.You keep fallaciously attributing a business persons' requirement to treat their customers fairly and equally to the customer. When, as has been stated at least 3 times, that requirement is one they are held to by the State. Which has pretty well uncontested authority to regulate intrastate commerce within its own boundaries.

At least you're no longer citing the 'Commerce Clause' in your replies. That's progress I think, as we've focused our conversation on the relevant seat of power: the State and its authority over intrastate commerce.

My conception of justice isn't about "balance". Equally violating people's rights is not justice.

Which might be relevant if 'equally violating people's rights' was what was being described. Alas, the right to 'eat cake' isn't a constitutionally recognized one. The right to free expression of religion is.

WTF??

What part didn't you understand?

 

[dblack]

I thought I did, but if not let me address that omission. While our Court has erroneously granted them this authority, it's a grave error. Economic freedom is even more important than religious freedom, and the next great advance in liberalism will be encoding that as a fundamental right.

How were the courts in error in recognizing the State's authority to regulate business within its own jurisdiction?

By and large, this is about the Civil Rights Act, and the use of the Commerce Clause to justify government control of our economic decisions.

Because I don't disagree with this point. But neither is a bakers refusal to bake a cake impacting a gay couple's right to eat cake.

Three is no right to 'eat cake' any more than there is a right to bake one.You keep fallaciously attributing a business persons' requirement to treat their customers fairly and equally to the customer. When, as has been stated at least 3 times, that requirement is one they are held to by the State. Which has pretty well uncontested authority to regulate intrastate commerce within its own boundaries.

Well, I hope I've been clear that I reject that interpretation of the Commerce Clause.

But my point is that PA laws don't protect anyone's rights. While I would contest that there is such a thing as a "right to eat cake", there is no right to make demand that someone supply you with cake. And there's no right to be treated fairly and equally by others. The Constitution requires that we are treated equally by government. It doesn't require that we treat each other equally. In fact, attempting to use government to achieve that goal, requires that government violate its mandate to treat people equally.

At least you're no longer citing the 'Commerce Clause' in your replies. That's progress I think, as we've focused our conversation on the relevant seat of power: the State and its authority over intrastate commerce.

Ironically, the intent of the Commerce Clause was to limit exactly what you're advocating. The point was to assert Federal power to limit the State's authority to dictate trade policies. People should read history.

What part didn't you understand?

"libertarianism and it's gift basket of system crippling flaws".

The only thing libertarianism "cripples" is the power to coerce others for your convenience.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

What rights are being protected?

The right to marry and the right to equal protection under the law guaranteed by the 14th amendment.

The Right to marry is not being usurped BY anyone, FROM ANYONE.

Nature designed the species... Marriage is a response to that natural design, wherein Marriage represents the analogous joining of ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN, through the sustained bond intrinsic to coitus; two complimenting bodies joined as one, for the purpose of procreation, assuring the propagation of the species. This, is natural law...

The union provides security, promoting the survival of the female during gestation. It serves to provide a stable means to nurture and train the progeny, through the benefit of the complimenting traits of the respective genders. This to provide, to the degree possible, for the best chance for well balanced, productive individuals, which provides for a balanced, sustainable culture.

Understand that protecting rights is the duty of every free sovereign, there is no right to claim that sexual abnormality is normal and force others to accept such, as such.

Both you and the States are subject to the Constitution, which stands as the supreme law of the land. You may imagine yourself a 'free sovereign'. But that doesn't exempt you from any law. Nor does it exempt the States.

I am exempt from all law which was illicitly passed and which at ANY TIME fails to serve justice. As an American, I am an individual, free unto myself and obligated to none beyond the Creator itself and, those to whom I have pledged my loyalty... OKA: SOVEREIGN. My consent to be governed, rest entirely upon the law being objective, fairly adjudicated and in all instance, serves justice; which axiomatically recognizes that each individual is equal before God, thus equal before lessor judges; equal in our rights and responsibilities.

Contrary to the whimsy of the intellectually less fortunate, the US Constitution provides NO RIGHTS... to ANYONE. American principle provides that we are endowed by our Creator, with rights which are inseparable from our beings.

As for your acceptance of homosexuality as 'normal', no one cares, as your personal opinion is legally irrelevant. What is relevant is the law's recognition of the marriages of gays and lesbians as being valid. That's marriage equality.

Homosexuality deviates from the normality established by no less an authority than Nature itself. This is not even a debatable point.

Your need to pretend that what is unquestionably abnormal is otherwise normal is either a delusion or a deceit.

There is no potential for a third possibility. You either believe that which is demonstrably false, to be true... in which case you suffer from a profoundly flawed mental condition, as a result of a medical ailment, or your subjective need prohibits you from knowing the truth, in which case, you suffer from a profoundly flawed mental condition, animated by evil.

See how that works? You're either crazy, or evil.

In either case, your point of view is irrelevant to viability... which means that where you succeed, you lose and where you lose, everyone else wins, through their continued means to exercise their God-given rights, as a result of a community where free men bear their responsibilities, upon the understanding that there is no potential for a right, wherein the exercise of such usurps the means of another to exercise their own.

This means that there is no potential for a right which forces another into servitude toward the end of celebrating that which they recognize as abhorrent.

Your personal beliefs, I leave to you.

Mighty white of ya.

However, here's how I see it. Where you seek to offer such fraudulent reasoning as truth. Only what you believe and keep to yourself, is your business. What you believe and profess publicly, will be considered, and where logically sound it will find assent and adherence, and where such is unsound it find dissent and rejection.

Just as declaring that there is a right to pretend that one is entitled to force themselves into an institution, which exists only upon the standard which specifically excludes you.

I'm not quoting myself. I'm quoting the SCOTUS and the Constitution. The former which recognizes the right to marry. And the latter that recognizes equal protection in the law. Both sources are legally authoritative.

There is no right to marry outside the standards which define marriage. The right to marry is equally defended in law which SUSTAINS THE STANDARD THAT NATURE ESTABLISHED THROUGH THE DESIGN OF THE SPECIES.

Homosexuality is a perversion of human sexuality.

Says who?

Says Nature...

Says Nature... readily discerned by sound reason.

Can you quote nature saying this?

You're ignorant of the physiological traits of the respective genders?

LOL! SO you're a liar and an imbecile... answering the poser regarding to your state of mind.

Your position is therefore recognized as manifestly EVIL!

Go figure... Your concession is duly noted and summarily accepted.