Should people have to perform/provide services for gay weddings?

[OODA_Loop]

I give up. You just don't get it and aren't going to get it until the SCOTUS hears the first challenge. Who knows, maybe it will even be a challenge to your state's law.

So Perry Mason tell me, when that first case comes, what will the precedent be ?

 

[Unkotare]

And they claimed they were 'forced' to stop their work - they were not. They chose to stop their work because they were so hateful of homosexuals.

That is untrue on several levels. Why don't you stick to telling us how it goes in Australia?

See, this is what I don't get. You were offered proof that you are mistaken in your assertions and yet you persist. Why?]

I persist in the truth. Not only was Catholic Charities strong-armed out of the adoption services area via financial blackmail, but the law in question would prohibit any contact or interaction with the state regarding abortion, thereby rendering it effectively illegal for Catholic Charities to continue their work and adhere to their religious beliefs.

Some dope from Australia declaring any religious beliefs she disagrees with as "hate" is a whole other kettle of fish.

 

[Seawytch]

That is untrue on several levels. Why don't you stick to telling us how it goes in Australia?

See, this is what I don't get. You were offered proof that you are mistaken in your assertions and yet you persist. Why?]

I persist in the truth. Not only was Catholic Charities strong-armed out of the adoption services area via financial blackmail, but the law in question would prohibit any contact or interaction with the state regarding abortion, thereby rendering it effectively illegal for Catholic Charities to continue their work and adhere to their religious beliefs.

Some dope from Australia declaring any religious beliefs she disagrees with as "hate" is a whole other kettle of fish.

So now you're just lying. I provided you statements from the guy who ran the ******* place at the time. He stated, in plain English, that if they wanted the GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS...good old taxpayer money, they had to abide by the laws of the state.

They had two choices...pull out of the program or continue to place children in same sex households...just as they had been doing.

 

[Seawytch]

I give up. You just don't get it and aren't going to get it until the SCOTUS hears the first challenge. Who knows, maybe it will even be a challenge to your state's law.

So Perry Mason tell me, when that first case comes, what will the precedent be ?

With the current court? 5-4 in favor of striking down all anti gay marriage laws...if that's the case. I am thinking a challenge to Section 2 of DOMA will come first when some couple from NY moves to PA or a CA couple moves to Utah and their marriage is not recognized by the state like yours would be.

 

[AVG-JOE]

OK. here's a wild tangent. maybe it should even have it's own thread. but eh, i'm to lazy to start one.

A heterosexual could not marry his/her own brother or sister or cousin. Why? because of the risks of birth defects. Should the same law apply to homosexual couples? or is it not applicable in their case?

Homosexual couples cannot have children without the participation of a third party.

Same can be said for a lot of heterosexual couples...

Theory is great, but look around at what's happening on the ground. Homosexuals are raising kids and that's not going to change in a world where 'personal responsibility' remains a positive political phrase.

 

[AVG-JOE]

That is untrue on several levels. Why don't you stick to telling us how it goes in Australia?

See, this is what I don't get. You were offered proof that you are mistaken in your assertions and yet you persist. Why?]

I persist in the truth. Not only was Catholic Charities strong-armed out of the adoption services area via financial blackmail, but the law in question would prohibit any contact or interaction with the state regarding abortion, thereby rendering it effectively illegal for Catholic Charities to continue their work and adhere to their religious beliefs.

Some dope from Australia declaring any religious beliefs she disagrees with as "hate" is a whole other kettle of fish.

So? If taxpayer dollars are involved, religious consideration should be the last on the list of things to be discussed and discrimination should be the first.

Does anyone know if they even tried to continue on as a private organization?

 

[LittleNipper]

On Face the Nation this morning Bob Schieffer was surprised to hear that people such as bakers and photographers are facing fines and possibly jail time for not providing their services to gay weddings. Whatever you feel about whether people should be forced to facilitate something they are religiously opposed to, it says a lot about the media coverage that Schieffer didn't even know about it.

Do you feel people who are religiously opposed to gay marriage should have to cater to gay weddings?

Obama said he won't make churches perform gay weddings. So, if we believe him, that one little corner of culture might not be forced to change. But everything else is fair game, isn't it.

Public schools will be actively attempting to make children view gay marriage as normal. Adoption agencies will be penalized for not arranging for children to be placed with gay couples. And bakers could lose thousands of dollars or go to jail if they refuse to put two plastic men on top of a wedding cake.

No one or organization or community should be made to do anything which is immoral.

 

[LittleNipper]

See, this is what I don't get. You were offered proof that you are mistaken in your assertions and yet you persist. Why?]

I persist in the truth. Not only was Catholic Charities strong-armed out of the adoption services area via financial blackmail, but the law in question would prohibit any contact or interaction with the state regarding abortion, thereby rendering it effectively illegal for Catholic Charities to continue their work and adhere to their religious beliefs.

Some dope from Australia declaring any religious beliefs she disagrees with as "hate" is a whole other kettle of fish.

So? If taxpayer dollars are involved, religious consideration should be the last on the list of things to be discussed and discrimination should be the first.

Does anyone know if they even tried to continue on as a private organization?

This is one nation under God. No tax money should be used to promote or assist in anything immoral.

 

[Seawytch]

OK. here's a wild tangent. maybe it should even have it's own thread. but eh, i'm to lazy to start one.

A heterosexual could not marry his/her own brother or sister or cousin. Why? because of the risks of birth defects. Should the same law apply to homosexual couples? or is it not applicable in their case?

Homosexual couples cannot have children without the participation of a third party.

Same can be said for a lot of heterosexual couples...

Theory is great, but look around at what's happening on the ground. Homosexuals are raising kids and that's not going to change in a world where 'personal responsibility' remains a positive political phrase.

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children, There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

Justice Kennedy

 

[Seawytch]

See, this is what I don't get. You were offered proof that you are mistaken in your assertions and yet you persist. Why?]

I persist in the truth. Not only was Catholic Charities strong-armed out of the adoption services area via financial blackmail, but the law in question would prohibit any contact or interaction with the state regarding abortion, thereby rendering it effectively illegal for Catholic Charities to continue their work and adhere to their religious beliefs.

Some dope from Australia declaring any religious beliefs she disagrees with as "hate" is a whole other kettle of fish.

So? If taxpayer dollars are involved, religious consideration should be the last on the list of things to be discussed and discrimination should be the first.

Does anyone know if they even tried to continue on as a private organization?

Catholic Charities still exists and could, as far as I know, still perform private adoption services. Whether they chose to, I'm not certain.

 

[Katzndogz]

OK. here's a wild tangent. maybe it should even have it's own thread. but eh, i'm to lazy to start one.

A heterosexual could not marry his/her own brother or sister or cousin. Why? because of the risks of birth defects. Should the same law apply to homosexual couples? or is it not applicable in their case?

Homosexual couples cannot have children without the participation of a third party.

Same can be said for a lot of heterosexual couples...

Theory is great, but look around at what's happening on the ground. Homosexuals are raising kids and that's not going to change in a world where 'personal responsibility' remains a positive political phrase.

You are misusing the quoted text. The ostensible reason why heterosexuals cannot marry their own close relatives is because of the risk of birth defects. Same sex couples do not run a risk of having children of that relationship because they cannot have children without the participation of a third party. Two homosexual brothers who want to marry each other are no different that any other non-familial homosexual couple who want to marry each other.

 

[Katzndogz]

The ban on same sex adoption has completely ended the adoption of Russian orphans. Now the adoption procedures of two agencies are ended.

 

[Intense]

Reason and Logic would suggest that the Definition of Marriage, here, in the US, be a Union of a Man and a Woman, that the Court really has no grounds to declare differently. Unless it is the role of the Court to redefine the meanings of words, which it surely must do here, to show credibility. I would ask, under what authority does the Court have the Right to do that, or to legislate from the bench.
In the interest of Equality, does the Court have a Duty to create a term for a Union between Same Sex Couples, under any other name, granting it the same legal rights, as a Straight Married couple? Arguably? That is understandable. Why wasn't that the course? Why the attack, or the perceived attack on the concept of Traditional Marriage? Is the argument about fair resolution, or is there another agenda, more in line with an assault on Traditional Values, in the interest of forcing conformity to the will of the State, whom, at times confuses it's role with that of Supreme Authority? Is it that the State is looking for balance in the interest of justice, or are these just mind games, which both, divide the Community further, and impose greater control over our lives?

 

[LittleNipper]

Homosexual couples cannot have children without the participation of a third party.

Same can be said for a lot of heterosexual couples...

Theory is great, but look around at what's happening on the ground. Homosexuals are raising kids and that's not going to change in a world where 'personal responsibility' remains a positive political phrase.

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children, There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

Justice Kennedy

ALL children have a biological mother and a biological father. That pair is the only one that should be recognized.

 

[Unkotare]

See, this is what I don't get. You were offered proof that you are mistaken in your assertions and yet you persist. Why?]

I persist in the truth. Not only was Catholic Charities strong-armed out of the adoption services area via financial blackmail, but the law in question would prohibit any contact or interaction with the state regarding abortion, thereby rendering it effectively illegal for Catholic Charities to continue their work and adhere to their religious beliefs.

Some dope from Australia declaring any religious beliefs she disagrees with as "hate" is a whole other kettle of fish.

So now you're just lying. I provided you statements from the guy who ran the ******* place at the time. He stated, in plain English, that if they wanted the GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS...good old taxpayer money, they had to abide by the laws of the state.

They had two choices...pull out of the program or continue to place children in same sex households...just as they had been doing.

You provided plagiarism. I explained the reality of the situation.

 

[Seawytch]

Reason and Logic would suggest that the Definition of Marriage, here, in the US, be a Union of a Man and a Woman, that the Court really has no grounds to declare differently. Unless it is the role of the Court to redefine the meanings of words, which it surely must do here, to show credibility. I would ask, under what authority does the Court have the Right to do that, or to legislate from the bench.
In the interest of Equality, does the Court have a Duty to create a term for a Union between Same Sex Couples, under any other name, granting it the same legal rights, as a Straight Married couple? Arguably? That is understandable. Why wasn't that the course? Why the attack, or the perceived attack on the concept of Traditional Marriage? Is the argument about fair resolution, or is there another agenda, more in line with an assault on Traditional Values, in the interest of forcing conformity to the will of the State, whom, at times confuses it's role with that of Supreme Authority? Is it that the State is looking for balance in the interest of justice, or are these just mind games, which both, divide the Community further, and impose greater control over our lives?

No, your religion dictates that. In 13 states marriage is legally between same sex couples as well. Those states chose marriage equality and the only ruling the SCOTUS made was on the Federal recognition of those legal marriages.

 

[Seawytch]

I persist in the truth. Not only was Catholic Charities strong-armed out of the adoption services area via financial blackmail, but the law in question would prohibit any contact or interaction with the state regarding abortion, thereby rendering it effectively illegal for Catholic Charities to continue their work and adhere to their religious beliefs.

Some dope from Australia declaring any religious beliefs she disagrees with as "hate" is a whole other kettle of fish.

So now you're just lying. I provided you statements from the guy who ran the ******* place at the time. He stated, in plain English, that if they wanted the GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS...good old taxpayer money, they had to abide by the laws of the state.

They had two choices...pull out of the program or continue to place children in same sex households...just as they had been doing.

You provided plagiarism. I explained the reality of the situation.

Already linked.

What you did was make shit up contrary to facts so that they fit your agenda.

 

[Seawytch]

Same can be said for a lot of heterosexual couples...

Theory is great, but look around at what's happening on the ground. Homosexuals are raising kids and that's not going to change in a world where 'personal responsibility' remains a positive political phrase.

"There is an immediate legal injury and that's the voice of these children, There's some 40,000 children in California, according to the Red Brief, that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status. The voice of those children is important in this case, don't you think?"

Justice Kennedy

ALL children have a biological mother and a biological father. That pair is the only one that should be recognized.

That's a lot of adoptions, artificial inseminations and surrogacies you want to stop...by straight couples.

 

[JoeB131]

Reason and Logic would suggest that the Definition of Marriage, here, in the US, be a Union of a Man and a Woman, that the Court really has no grounds to declare differently. Unless it is the role of the Court to redefine the meanings of words, which it surely must do here, to show credibility. I would ask, under what authority does the Court have the Right to do that, or to legislate from the bench.
In the interest of Equality, does the Court have a Duty to create a term for a Union between Same Sex Couples, under any other name, granting it the same legal rights, as a Straight Married couple? Arguably? That is understandable. Why wasn't that the course? Why the attack, or the perceived attack on the concept of Traditional Marriage? Is the argument about fair resolution, or is there another agenda, more in line with an assault on Traditional Values, in the interest of forcing conformity to the will of the State, whom, at times confuses it's role with that of Supreme Authority? Is it that the State is looking for balance in the interest of justice, or are these just mind games, which both, divide the Community further, and impose greater control over our lives?

You know, when I was a younger man and more conservative, I did ask why the courts had to legislate from the bench, and the PolSci prof said I had a "slot-machine" view of government.

Sometimes the courts have to legislate from the bench, because the legislative branch is too cowardly to do the right thing.

I also have a hard time seeing how "traditional" marriage is being assaulted" by letting gays do it. Especially since what we consider "Traditional" today is probably less than a hundred years old.

For most of history, marriages were arranged by families (sometimes hastily after a pregnancy), women had no property rights, spousal abuse was accepted as the norm.

The notion of two people entering the marriage as equals is really the new, radical idea.

 

[JoeB131]

Final note @ Intense- Wouldn't the large number of out of wedlock births, unmarried cohabitation and high divorce rate be more of an assault on "Traditional" marriage than letting the gay folks do it?