Supreme Court justices RIP ruling forcing states to recognize same-sex marriages - 'Threat To Religious Freedom!'

[TemplarKormac]

...

There has to be a way to fight for your rights without ruining someone.

There just has to be.

How does same sex marriage ruin anyone outside of pissing off the bigots?

You miss the point entirely. As such, it would be a waste of time trying.

You can only see this issue from one perspective. A biased one.

Same sex marriage itself does not "ruin" anyone or anything. Forcing someone to put messages that endorse a practice their religion teaches against does, and as we have all seen, they were swiftly put out of business for it. That should not be. There has to be a way to accommodate the gay and the Christian alike.

It’s quite simple actually......
Mind your own business and keep your opinions to yourself

If Christians cannot tolerate gays.......pray for them and STFU

"Mind your own business and keep your opinions to yourself."

That's not how this country works you fascist fool.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Oh, I see. RW can't argue the point or answer the question, he is left with nothing but to press the funny button.

Oh, and screaming "shut up and mind your own business."

He can't stand it when a gay person thinks for himself. That is clearly evident. And now we know where the real bigotry lies.

The hilarity never ends.

 

[Coyote]

Okay. So, back to my original point. Why must a person choose between their beliefs and their livelihood? It's like... someone having to abandon what they believe in in order to make a living. That is plain wrong. But all I see is people like me making unreasonable demands of the faithful. And yes, I know, I have been and still am part of both sides of the coin. I know what it feels like to be a Christian and have my brethren chastised and ridiculed because they believe marriage is between one man and one woman. I have had gay friends who have been treated like shit by Christians claiming to be tolerant. I have seen gays treating Christians the same way demanding tolerance from them.

So no, the nature of belief is irrelevant. If you are truly interested in reaching a compromise that preserves the right of both parties, you leave the presumptions at the door. Period. Full stop.

I have experienced both sides. I still am. I have adapted my beliefs to be tolerant of other gay people, because I myself am one. I can see the reasoning behind both arguments, and I can tell you that compromise is impossible if you automatically assume the ideas and beliefs of the other side from the beginning.

Are all Christians Bible thumping bigots? No. Some are, a great deal of them aren't. I can tell you that also because my devout grandmother still thinks homosexuality is a sin, but not to the point where she openly disowned me when I came out to her a couple years back.

Are all gays simple-minded sexual deviants? No. In fact, I am gay and asexual. I have no interest in romance, so I know from personal experience that such an assumption isn't true.

PA laws are secular. As they should be. But they need to be ethical to both sides, not just one or the other. I will not stand at the counter and force a Christian store owner to choose between feeding his or her kids and accomodating my sexual affiliation against the teaching of their faith.

What is ethical to both sides...what is fair exactly?

What if everyone in the community feels the same and refuses service?

And this is kind of where I think religious rights can instead become a form of tyranny.

If you open a business that serves the public...it needs to serve the public equally.

 

[Seawytch]

I've known Satanists in my life, and they do nothing like what you describe.

Duh, because it is illegal.

What the hell is a Rastafarian?

Rastafari, also known as Rastafarianism and the Rastafari Movement, is a religion that developed in Jamaica during the 1930s. It is classified as both a new religious movement and a social movement by scholars of religion. Wikipedia​

​

Polygamy is illegal even in the Bible (See Genesis 2:23-24 and set aside the whole "man-woman" thing. God made his intent clear from the very beginning that marriage is between two people. Not 20.)

The MORMON bible says they can. Where is their free exercise of religion?

Racism is not a religious ideal, it is evil.

And yet the racists believe the bible backs THEM up just as deeply as the homophobes do. Why aren't their "deeply held religious beliefs" taken into account?

And before you get started, no, I am not going to dive into the theological weeds with you. So don't bother.

I'll "bother" with whatever I feel like, especially when you display such a naive ignorance of facts. You want anti gay Christians to have "rights" and privileges not granted racists. That's not equal.

Now, your presumptions about people of faith has led you to be as vindictive as you can possibly be. No wonder we in the LGBT community can't get the other side to look at us and out cause positively. People like you are just as full of hatred and spite as some Christians are. Both sides have burned their bridges, and continue doing so.

Spare me the lecture. And don't preach tolerance to me when you can't even accept that another gay person has a different opinion than you.

It's not vindictiveness, it is simply seeking equality. Racists don't get to deny service to blacks or interracial couples. Why should the anti gay bigots be able to? Either the racists should be able to discriminate as well or the anti gay bigots should not be able to, right?

 

[Seawytch]

...

There has to be a way to fight for your rights without ruining someone.

There just has to be.

It didn't ruin Woolworths when they had to serve blacks at their counter.

 

[Coyote]

KL,.

Coyote

Is this how liberals treat gay people like me? Like monsters? I would like to hear your response specifically.

I’m not sure where you are coming from on this question. Do you mean being gay and being Christian? Being gay and also trying to respect the religious rights of others?

As a liberal, I have a lot of respect for you, your beliefs, and your struggle to find a just and fair balance. No monsters.

 

[TemplarKormac]

...

There has to be a way to fight for your rights without ruining someone.

There just has to be.

It didn't ruin Woolworths when they had to serve blacks at their counter.

That's a dodge. We're not talking about racism. That, as far as PA laws go, was solved.

 

[Seawytch]

...

There has to be a way to fight for your rights without ruining someone.

There just has to be.

It didn't ruin Woolworths when they had to serve blacks at their counter.

That's a dodge. We're not talking about racism. That, as far as PA laws go, was solved.

No, you are dodging. I am making a valid comparison. You want antigay bigots to be able to deny service to gays but you draw the line at allowing racist bigots the same "religious freedom" . Why?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'll "bother" with whatever I feel like, especially when you display such a naive ignorance of facts. You want anti gay Christians to have "rights" and privileges not granted racists. That's not equal.

Oh wow, look at the mental gymnastics there. Even the East German judge gave you a 10 for that one.

I know what the facts are, and they don't agree with your emotions. That much is clear

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What is ethical to both sides...what is fair exactly?

What if everyone in the community feels the same and refuses service?

And this is kind of where I think religious rights can instead become a form of tyranny.

If you open a business that serves the public...it needs to serve the public equally.

Then once again I pose the question: If a senior member of the KKK had a birthday party, should a black baker be forced by law to make his birthday cake with a black man hanging from a rope?

 

[Seawytch]

I'll "bother" with whatever I feel like, especially when you display such a naive ignorance of facts. You want anti gay Christians to have "rights" and privileges not granted racists. That's not equal.

Oh wow, look at the mental gymnastics there. Even the East German judge gave you a 10 for that one.

I know what the facts are, and they don't agree with your emotions. That much is clear

Then what are "the facts"? Racists cannot, by law, refuse to serve an interracial couple. Should they be able to, yes or no?

 

[TemplarKormac]

You want antigay bigots to be able to deny service to gays but you draw the line at allowing racist bigots the same "religious freedom" .

Um, no. Where are you getting this from?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'll "bother" with whatever I feel like, especially when you display such a naive ignorance of facts. You want anti gay Christians to have "rights" and privileges not granted racists. That's not equal.

Oh wow, look at the mental gymnastics there. Even the East German judge gave you a 10 for that one.

I know what the facts are, and they don't agree with your emotions. That much is clear

Then what are "the facts"? Racists cannot, by law, refuse to serve an interracial couple. Should they be able to, yes or no?

What are you getting at? You aren't even trying to address my original point.

 

[Seawytch]

What is ethical to both sides...what is fair exactly?

What if everyone in the community feels the same and refuses service?

And this is kind of where I think religious rights can instead become a form of tyranny.

If you open a business that serves the public...it needs to serve the public equally.

Then once again I pose the question: If a senior member of the KKK had a birthday party, should a black baker be forced by law to make his birthday cake with a black man hanging from a rope?

Which one is for the wedding of a gay couple? You cannot compel speech and the gay couples are not asking for a product the baker does not sell. A wedding cake is a wedding cake.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Coyote

Is this how liberals treat gay people like me? Like monsters? I would like to hear your response specifically.

That's exactly what they do. The Democrat party divides people into groups. Then they decide which groups they like and which ones they don't. Look how they've treated black people throughout the years, like kids on the short school bus. You can't do X without us, you won't be treated fairly unless you vote for us, you will be a failure unless you vote for us. Then after all that, they usher in illegal immigrants to take their jobs, or go to court to fight school vouchers which has helped a lot of black children.

Each party wants to expand their tent as they say in politics. The two main supportive groups for the Democrats are government dependents and victims. Democrats love victims and victims love Democrats. It make sense for them to expand that victim tent for power.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Do you mean being gay and being Christian? Being gay and also trying to respect the religious rights of others?

Precisely. Because I have inhabited both sides of the coin.

 

[Seawytch]

I'll "bother" with whatever I feel like, especially when you display such a naive ignorance of facts. You want anti gay Christians to have "rights" and privileges not granted racists. That's not equal.

Oh wow, look at the mental gymnastics there. Even the East German judge gave you a 10 for that one.

I know what the facts are, and they don't agree with your emotions. That much is clear

Then what are "the facts"? Racists cannot, by law, refuse to serve an interracial couple. Should they be able to, yes or no?

What are you getting at? You aren't even trying to address my original point.

Your point is that you believe that Christians should be able to deny service to gays, correct?

 

[Coyote]

What is ethical to both sides...what is fair exactly?

What if everyone in the community feels the same and refuses service?

And this is kind of where I think religious rights can instead become a form of tyranny.

If you open a business that serves the public...it needs to serve the public equally.

Then once again I pose the question: If a senior member of the KKK had a birthday party, should a black baker be forced by law to make his birthday cake with a black man hanging from a rope?

But see, that is where your example is wrong.

The baker only needs to provide a birthday cake of the sort of designs he would provide normally. He can’t be forced to make special products he does not ordinarily provide. Likewise, a Baker who makes wedding cakes can’t be forced to create, say, a pornographic wedding cake, if he does not ordinarily do so, but he can’t discriminate on who he will serve based on their sexual orientation.

 

[TemplarKormac]

What is ethical to both sides...what is fair exactly?

What if everyone in the community feels the same and refuses service?

And this is kind of where I think religious rights can instead become a form of tyranny.

If you open a business that serves the public...it needs to serve the public equally.

Then once again I pose the question: If a senior member of the KKK had a birthday party, should a black baker be forced by law to make his birthday cake with a black man hanging from a rope?

Which one is for the wedding of a gay couple? You cannot compel speech and the gay couples are not asking for a product the baker does not sell. A wedding cake is a wedding cake.

See... here's the thing, if there's no message or any compulsion by the buyer to endorse gay marriage, they should serve them. But if you are going to stand there and threaten to ruin them because they will not adhere to your demands to put pro-gay imagery or messaging on said cake, you go too far.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'll "bother" with whatever I feel like, especially when you display such a naive ignorance of facts. You want anti gay Christians to have "rights" and privileges not granted racists. That's not equal.

Oh wow, look at the mental gymnastics there. Even the East German judge gave you a 10 for that one.

I know what the facts are, and they don't agree with your emotions. That much is clear

Then what are "the facts"? Racists cannot, by law, refuse to serve an interracial couple. Should they be able to, yes or no?

What are you getting at? You aren't even trying to address my original point.

Your point is that you believe that Christians should be able to deny service to gays, correct?

No. They should only deny service when such service comes in conflict with the stated tenets of their faith. As I just got done explaining in the previous post. Messaging and symbolism are the issue. The cake itself is not. Bake the cake, or offer a DIY cake decorating class free of charge. Let the couple put whatever they want on the cake.

Easy, right?