The dreaded gay-wedding-cake saga ends: bakers must pay 135 K

[Syriusly]

First of all, I 'm not gay. That's yet another one of your delusions. Secondly, banning gay marriage was not a case of similarly situated because there was no compelling reason to deny homosexuals from their right to marry the person they love. Seriously, WTF is wrong with you?

I'll have to take your word that you are not gay. That's how it used to work. No one could really tell when a gay was in the locker room. Now that they can marry, the married gay is on public record, so the world is given notice.

They also were given the status of being similarly situated:

Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

So Faun, tell me the remarkable difference between a Married Lesbian and a Married Straight Male?

Emotions do not make good law.

You might want to understand both public acommodation laws and the recent USSC ruling granting similarity to same sex couples.

In effect, gay couples now have greater access to public acommodations than straight couples.

So what is YOUR problem?

I have no problem. I've been saying for years that gays should be allowed to marry; otherwise their equal protection was being violated. The U.S.S.C. decision proved I was right.

As far as differences between a married lesbian and straight male ... their gender.

And............

It would be discrimination on that basis, not to mention they are considered as similarily situated.

Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

So Sayeth the USSC.

Pop's meltdown over legal same gender marriage continues.

And Syriously's nervous breakdown over the ramifications of his genderless society actually looks like continues.

Oh, all these arguments were first yours.....

Compelling state interest

Similarily Situated

And you are really this unprepared?

Now that's funny!

And Pop's meltdown continues.

But I applaud his efforts to gain access to the women's showers.

 

[Vandalshandle]

I'll have to take your word that you are not gay. That's how it used to work. No one could really tell when a gay was in the locker room. Now that they can marry, the married gay is on public record, so the world is given notice.

They also were given the status of being similarly situated:

Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

So Faun, tell me the remarkable difference between a Married Lesbian and a Married Straight Male?

Emotions do not make good law.

You might want to understand both public acommodation laws and the recent USSC ruling granting similarity to same sex couples.

In effect, gay couples now have greater access to public acommodations than straight couples.

So what is YOUR problem?

I have no problem. I've been saying for years that gays should be allowed to marry; otherwise their equal protection was being violated. The U.S.S.C. decision proved I was right.

As far as differences between a married lesbian and straight male ... their gender.

And............

It would be discrimination on that basis, not to mention they are considered as similarily situated.

Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

So Sayeth the USSC.

Pop's meltdown over legal same gender marriage continues.

Pink bunnies!!!!!!

Your high school mascot?

As a mater of fact, we did call ourselves the " _________ bunnies", because we went for 3 years without winning a football game.

 

[MisterBeale]

 

[Syriusly]

LOL.......poor Christians....being told that they have to follow the law also.....

 

[Vandalshandle]

 

[Pop23]

I'll have to take your word that you are not gay. That's how it used to work. No one could really tell when a gay was in the locker room. Now that they can marry, the married gay is on public record, so the world is given notice.

They also were given the status of being similarly situated:

Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

So Faun, tell me the remarkable difference between a Married Lesbian and a Married Straight Male?

Emotions do not make good law.

You might want to understand both public acommodation laws and the recent USSC ruling granting similarity to same sex couples.

In effect, gay couples now have greater access to public acommodations than straight couples.

So what is YOUR problem?

I have no problem. I've been saying for years that gays should be allowed to marry; otherwise their equal protection was being violated. The U.S.S.C. decision proved I was right.

As far as differences between a married lesbian and straight male ... their gender.

And............

It would be discrimination on that basis, not to mention they are considered as similarily situated.

Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

So Sayeth the USSC.

Pop's meltdown over legal same gender marriage continues.

And Syriously's nervous breakdown over the ramifications of his genderless society actually looks like continues.

Oh, all these arguments were first yours.....

Compelling state interest

Similarily Situated

And you are really this unprepared?

Now that's funny!

And Pop's meltdown continues.

But I applaud his efforts to gain access to the women's showers.

You still pissed? Cuz gays have been using bathrooms like singles bars? Is your party over now?

 

[Seawytch]

I have no problem. I've been saying for years that gays should be allowed to marry; otherwise their equal protection was being violated. The U.S.S.C. decision proved I was right.

As far as differences between a married lesbian and straight male ... their gender.

And............

It would be discrimination on that basis, not to mention they are considered as similarily situated.

Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

So Sayeth the USSC.

Pop's meltdown over legal same gender marriage continues.

And Syriously's nervous breakdown over the ramifications of his genderless society actually looks like continues.

Oh, all these arguments were first yours.....

Compelling state interest

Similarily Situated

And you are really this unprepared?

Now that's funny!

And Pop's meltdown continues.

But I applaud his efforts to gain access to the women's showers.

You still pissed? Cuz gays have been using bathrooms like singles bars? Is your party over now?

They have? I had no idea. I've been going into public restrooms and showering in public showers when necessary for over 40 years and never once have I heard a pickup line or seen a disco ball. Where ARE you peeing? Are you sure you've been using public restrooms?

 

[Syriusly]

I have no problem. I've been saying for years that gays should be allowed to marry; otherwise their equal protection was being violated. The U.S.S.C. decision proved I was right.

As far as differences between a married lesbian and straight male ... their gender.

And............

It would be discrimination on that basis, not to mention they are considered as similarily situated.

Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

So Sayeth the USSC.

Pop's meltdown over legal same gender marriage continues.

And Syriously's nervous breakdown over the ramifications of his genderless society actually looks like continues.

Oh, all these arguments were first yours.....

Compelling state interest

Similarily Situated

And you are really this unprepared?

Now that's funny!

And Pop's meltdown continues.

But I applaud his efforts to gain access to the women's showers.

You still pissed? Cuz gays have been using bathrooms like singles bars? Is your party over now?

I am very happy.

Couples in love are getting married.

And absolutely none of what you have predicted has happened.

 

[Syriusly]

And............

It would be discrimination on that basis, not to mention they are considered as similarily situated.

Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

So Sayeth the USSC.

Pop's meltdown over legal same gender marriage continues.

And Syriously's nervous breakdown over the ramifications of his genderless society actually looks like continues.

Oh, all these arguments were first yours.....

Compelling state interest

Similarily Situated

And you are really this unprepared?

Now that's funny!

And Pop's meltdown continues.

But I applaud his efforts to gain access to the women's showers.

You still pissed? Cuz gays have been using bathrooms like singles bars? Is your party over now?

They have? I had no idea. I've been going into public restrooms and showering in public showers when necessary for over 40 years and never once have I heard a pickup line or seen a disco ball. Where ARE you peeing? Are you sure you've been using public restrooms?

It does make you wonder about what bathrooms Pop hangs out in.

 

[Seawytch]

Pop's meltdown over legal same gender marriage continues.

And Syriously's nervous breakdown over the ramifications of his genderless society actually looks like continues.

Oh, all these arguments were first yours.....

Compelling state interest

Similarily Situated

And you are really this unprepared?

Now that's funny!

And Pop's meltdown continues.

But I applaud his efforts to gain access to the women's showers.

You still pissed? Cuz gays have been using bathrooms like singles bars? Is your party over now?

They have? I had no idea. I've been going into public restrooms and showering in public showers when necessary for over 40 years and never once have I heard a pickup line or seen a disco ball. Where ARE you peeing? Are you sure you've been using public restrooms?

It does make you wonder about what bathrooms Pop hangs out in.

Minneapolis airport maybe?

 

[Dot Com]

The majority being persecuted is a hoot

 

[MisterBeale]

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Do we have a current total on donations ?

 

[Faun]

In the business offering a locker room, everyone has access to it. In the business offering wedding cakes, only straight people have access to it. Using your analogy, it would be illegal to bar homosexuals from using the locker room.

One must be seperate to be equal?

The other not?

I take it civil unions would have been fine with you for gays, right?

You do understand the legal standing that same sex couples were granted, right?

Here, I'll link to it again:Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

First of all, I 'm not gay. That's yet another one of your delusions. Secondly, banning gay marriage was not a case of similarly situated because there was no compelling reason to deny homosexuals from their right to marry the person they love. Seriously, WTF is wrong with you?

I'll have to take your word that you are not gay. That's how it used to work. No one could really tell when a gay was in the locker room. Now that they can marry, the married gay is on public record, so the world is given notice.

They also were given the status of being similarly situated:

Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

So Faun, tell me the remarkable difference between a Married Lesbian and a Married Straight Male?

Emotions do not make good law.

You might want to understand both public acommodation laws and the recent USSC ruling granting similarity to same sex couples.

In effect, gay couples now have greater access to public acommodations than straight couples.

So what is YOUR problem?

I have no problem. I've been saying for years that gays should be allowed to marry; otherwise their equal protection was being violated. The U.S.S.C. decision proved I was right.

As far as differences between a married lesbian and straight male ... their gender.

And............

It would be discrimination on that basis, not to mention they are considered as similarily situated.

Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

So Sayeth the USSC.

Where is the discrimination? Both have access to locker rooms?

 

[emilynghiem]

This is why his response was comically weak. Fat people - at the very least because there are more of them - take a lot more abuse than gay people. But the point here isn't that they should be protected from discrimination too. The point is, everyone has their biases, and it's their right. Dictating our thoughts via government is totalitarian oppression. Period.

And they are protected from discrimination in Public Accommodation in some states. Maybe even more than gays are protected in.

ELLIOTT-LARSEN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT Act 453 of 1976
AN ACT to define civil rights; to prohibit discriminatory practices, policies, and customs in the exercise of those rights based upon religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, familial status, or marital status;

Hi Seawytch
Technically, anything to do with Orientation (or gender based on something other than genetic designation at birth)
is FAITH based, NOT proven scientifically, and falls under CREED.

So equally does the belief that homosexuality is unnatural and against
someone's religion fall under CREED.

Two CREEDS are equal under law.

It is against Constitutional Ethics for the Govt to take one CREED over another.
To impose beliefs either "for or against" homosexuality over the other side.

That is a bias by CREED and form of Discrimination that
violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments which the Civil Rights Act extended to public institutions.

Seawytch I understand that people are abusing their religious freedom
to discriminate against progray beliefs that are equal under law;
but it does not correct the problem to discriminate the other way!

Two wrongs do not make this right.

NEITHER side can abuse govt to discriminate against the beliefs of the other.

Both progay and antigay beliefs and creeds are equal under law
because NEITHER is proven scientifically to be natural/unnatural, choice or behavior, born or not,
so they are BOTH FAITH BASED CREEDS.

You are right that neither should these laws be abused
to discriminate against gay beliefs, and that is what the Christians are saying
also that the laws should not be abused to discriminate against their beliefs
that homosexuality is unnatural but a choice they cannot be required by govt to recognize or support
or associate with if it is against their beliefs.

Nobody is discriminating against Christians. It's against the law in all 50 states. Having to follow a state law that protects others in addition to Christians isn't discrimination.

^ Not True ^
Christians are forced to fund abortion measures they have been fighting to separate from
the same way anti-death penalty opponents have been fighting not to fund that either!

If YOU were forced to fund faith-based activities you felt were outside of govt jurisdiction,
you'd push to separate that from public policy also if it was as serious to you as
these beliefs are to them. Like gay marriage, even if it is only 3-5% of the population,
people are fighting for that. So the same with Christians and their prolife beliefs
where they don't want public institutions having anything to do with abortion that is against their beliefs.

In the meantime, they fight just as hard as the progay advocates were fighting over marriage beliefs.

If you don't consider prolife to be a belief protected by law,
how are you supposed to push for progay beliefs to be protected?

How is that fair , Seawytch

For one group to push to protect the rights of the unborn they BELIEVE to deserve 'equal protection of the laws'
and one group to push to protect the rights of gays and marriage they BELIEVE should be recognized by law.

If YOU push for YOUR beliefs to be endorsed and implemented by Govt
then it would only be fair for the people with Prolife beliefs to have that endorsed and implemented by Govt.

Otherwise, you would be discriminating by CREED -- only using Govt to endorse and establish YOUR beliefs
about gay marriage but when it comes to beliefs about Prolife and protecting the rights of unborn,
SUDDENLY that is faith based and doesn't belong in Govt.
Well, so are the rights of gays and marriage "faith based" where that is arguably outside Govt jurisdiction, too!

So that's discrimination and it is in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and Civil Rights Act.

If you don't see this bias going on, you are equally part of the
problem you point out with anti-gay bias who only see their beliefs as valid for Govt to endorse
but don't want other people's beliefs pushed through Govt. So you are both discriminating against the beliefs of the others; you are equally willing to push beliefs through Govt as long as they are YOUR beliefs and values.
That is violating the First Amendment to abuse Govt to establish beliefs (unless it by consent of all people so there is no faith-based imposition or exclusion going on).

In a word, no.

Christians are not being discriminated against by having to obey laws.

Hi Seawytch
Laws are unconstitutional if the govt is abused to establish faith-based beliefs.
The Christians are arguing the health care and marriage laws are imposing beliefs through govt.
And I agree that this is unconstitutional, outside govt authority.

We don't expect atheists and secular humanists to obey biased laws
that the Christians pass through govt. The laws against abortion were struck down
because of due process issues; and the arguments to reinstate them based
on "BELIEFS" in when life begins are struck down as FAITH BASED.

So Seawytch if the shoe was on the other foot,
and the Christians got majority rule of Congress or 5 of out 9 jjudges on the Supreme Court to
rule in favor of Prolife Beliefs being protected by law,
then you and me and others would be yelling that's not Constitutional either.

The same way Rosa Parks and others DISOBEYED the laws on segregation to protest
(and landed in jail for it, including Dr. King), that's why we see the Christians facing
fines and penalties rather than compromise their beliefs which the law discriminates against.

Seawytch I think you are a fair person and will be able to see
both sides of these issues.

The issue of Marriage should be kept OUT of Govt
or it's like tearing the baby in half. Both sides want
THEIR beliefs protected, but Govt cannot endorse
one belief over the other. So Govt either has to remain
neutral, only endorse neutrally written laws that all sides
agree does not impose or exclude any religious angle
that is unfair to part of the population the laws are supposed to represent equally and inclusively,
or stay out of marriage and revert all marriage and benefits and social programs
attached to these institutions back to private groups to organize by their own members' beliefs
and not put this on govt.

This is why we SEPARATE church and state, to keep beliefs out of govt
instead of trying to nationalize one system for all people who don't believe in the same values.

With secular laws that can remain objective, that's where govt can be used to mandate one policy.
But NOT SO with anything to do with BELIEFS. Govt cannot force anyone to change their BELIEFS.

So this is where Constitutional laws and principles draw the line.
Secular humanists and liberals call this Separation of church and state
but are failing to follow this policy when it comes to humanist/secular beliefs.

All beliefs and creeds should be treated the same way.

Seawytch you cannot make it illegal for someone to practice their beliefs
and then turn around and say they are not obeying the law.
IT IS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION TO ESTABLISH A RELIGIOUS BIAS.

So that is where the contradiction is that is causing both sides to feel the other is violating laws.

 

[Syriusly]

And they are protected from discrimination in Public Accommodation in some states. Maybe even more than gays are protected in.

ELLIOTT-LARSEN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT Act 453 of 1976
AN ACT to define civil rights; to prohibit discriminatory practices, policies, and customs in the exercise of those rights based upon religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, familial status, or marital status;

Hi Seawytch
Technically, anything to do with Orientation (or gender based on something other than genetic designation at birth)
is FAITH based, NOT proven scientifically, and falls under CREED.

So equally does the belief that homosexuality is unnatural and against
someone's religion fall under CREED.

Two CREEDS are equal under law.

It is against Constitutional Ethics for the Govt to take one CREED over another.
To impose beliefs either "for or against" homosexuality over the other side.

That is a bias by CREED and form of Discrimination that
violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments which the Civil Rights Act extended to public institutions.

Seawytch I understand that people are abusing their religious freedom
to discriminate against progray beliefs that are equal under law;
but it does not correct the problem to discriminate the other way!

Two wrongs do not make this right.

NEITHER side can abuse govt to discriminate against the beliefs of the other.

Both progay and antigay beliefs and creeds are equal under law
because NEITHER is proven scientifically to be natural/unnatural, choice or behavior, born or not,
so they are BOTH FAITH BASED CREEDS.

You are right that neither should these laws be abused
to discriminate against gay beliefs, and that is what the Christians are saying
also that the laws should not be abused to discriminate against their beliefs
that homosexuality is unnatural but a choice they cannot be required by govt to recognize or support
or associate with if it is against their beliefs.

Nobody is discriminating against Christians. It's against the law in all 50 states. Having to follow a state law that protects others in addition to Christians isn't discrimination.

^ Not True ^
Christians are forced to fund abortion measures they have been fighting to separate from
the same way anti-death penalty opponents have been fighting not to fund that either!

If YOU were forced to fund faith-based activities you felt were outside of govt jurisdiction,
you'd push to separate that from public policy also if it was as serious to you as
these beliefs are to them. Like gay marriage, even if it is only 3-5% of the population,
people are fighting for that. So the same with Christians and their prolife beliefs
where they don't want public institutions having anything to do with abortion that is against their beliefs.

In the meantime, they fight just as hard as the progay advocates were fighting over marriage beliefs.

If you don't consider prolife to be a belief protected by law,
how are you supposed to push for progay beliefs to be protected?

How is that fair , Seawytch

For one group to push to protect the rights of the unborn they BELIEVE to deserve 'equal protection of the laws'
and one group to push to protect the rights of gays and marriage they BELIEVE should be recognized by law.

If YOU push for YOUR beliefs to be endorsed and implemented by Govt
then it would only be fair for the people with Prolife beliefs to have that endorsed and implemented by Govt.

Otherwise, you would be discriminating by CREED -- only using Govt to endorse and establish YOUR beliefs
about gay marriage but when it comes to beliefs about Prolife and protecting the rights of unborn,
SUDDENLY that is faith based and doesn't belong in Govt.
Well, so are the rights of gays and marriage "faith based" where that is arguably outside Govt jurisdiction, too!

So that's discrimination and it is in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and Civil Rights Act.

If you don't see this bias going on, you are equally part of the
problem you point out with anti-gay bias who only see their beliefs as valid for Govt to endorse
but don't want other people's beliefs pushed through Govt. So you are both discriminating against the beliefs of the others; you are equally willing to push beliefs through Govt as long as they are YOUR beliefs and values.
That is violating the First Amendment to abuse Govt to establish beliefs (unless it by consent of all people so there is no faith-based imposition or exclusion going on).

In a word, no.

Christians are not being discriminated against by having to obey laws.

Hi Seawytch
Laws are unconstitutional if the govt is abused to establish faith-based beliefs.
The Christians are arguing the health care and marriage laws are imposing beliefs through govt.
And I agree that this is unconstitutional, outside govt authority.

We don't expect atheists and secular humanists to obey biased laws
that the Christians pass through govt.

For years Christians did expect 'atheists' to obey biased laws.

Matter of fact- Americans are expected to obey the law- every law.

 

[emilynghiem]

One must be seperate to be equal?

The other not?

I take it civil unions would have been fine with you for gays, right?

You do understand the legal standing that same sex couples were granted, right?

Here, I'll link to it again:Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

First of all, I 'm not gay. That's yet another one of your delusions. Secondly, banning gay marriage was not a case of similarly situated because there was no compelling reason to deny homosexuals from their right to marry the person they love. Seriously, WTF is wrong with you?

I'll have to take your word that you are not gay. That's how it used to work. No one could really tell when a gay was in the locker room. Now that they can marry, the married gay is on public record, so the world is given notice.

They also were given the status of being similarly situated:

Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

So Faun, tell me the remarkable difference between a Married Lesbian and a Married Straight Male?

Emotions do not make good law.

You might want to understand both public acommodation laws and the recent USSC ruling granting similarity to same sex couples.

In effect, gay couples now have greater access to public acommodations than straight couples.

So what is YOUR problem?

I have no problem. I've been saying for years that gays should be allowed to marry; otherwise their equal protection was being violated. The U.S.S.C. decision proved I was right.

As far as differences between a married lesbian and straight male ... their gender.

And............

It would be discrimination on that basis, not to mention they are considered as similarily situated.

Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

So Sayeth the USSC.

Pop's meltdown over legal same gender marriage continues.

Dear Syriusly

1. Do you really feel it is right to jump on Pop23 personally, as a bullying tactic instead of addressing the contents and arguments, at the same time people are lobbying to stop bullying gay people but to treat all people with equal RESPECT as citizens and human beings.

If you don't like people bullying and tearing down gay people with *Personal Attacks*, trying to cut them down Emotionally,
why are you acting this way to Pop?

2. As for the content of your arguments back and forth with Pop
Syriusly whether Congress, Courts or govt rules this way or that way,
it does not change the fact that marriage involves FAITH based BELIEFS.

So any marriage laws are violating separation of church and state
unless they are written neutrally in ways that ALL people consent to and don't argue as having a bias based on beliefs.

That is a conflict REGARDLESS who believes what, who sides with which side, etc.

Those two sides have CONFLICTING beliefs.

3. It is also a conflict that the liberals push for Separation of church and state
but violate this principle by pushing gay marriage, right to marriage, right to health care, etc. as BELIEFS.

That contradicts itself regardless of how anyone reacts to it.
You could blow up, melt down, or respond perfectly rationally and reasonably,
and the liberal political agenda STILL CONTRADICTS ITS OWN PRINCIPLES.

* The ACA mandates violate prochoice principles by penalizing free choices and forcing everyone to buy insurance
as the "only choice" or pay a FINE by seizing an increasing percent of each person's salary.

* Now the Federal Govt pushing gay marriage as an institution to be practiced and implemented through the State
violates religious freedom and equal protection of the laws from discrimination by creed.

Just because people like you and Seawytch think those beliefs are wrong and don't count them as protected
by law doesn't give you the authority to VOID someone's beliefs; this is just as wrong to count homosexuality
as wrong and VOID the belief in the right to get married. So how can you discount one person's beliefs
and say you are trying to protect gay rights equally? That is putting gay rights and beliefs ABOVE
the rights and beliefs of others, which isn't equal.

Both sides are trying to abuse govt to establish their beliefs while discounting the other which isn't constitutional.

The conflict remains because it is on a spiritual level of people's BELIEFS.
laws passed through Govt are not going to resolve that conflict.
People have to address and resolve their own matters when it comes to BELIEFS.
That is not the job of govt. That remains with the people to deal with religiously held BELIEFS.

 

[Faun]

And............

It would be discrimination on that basis, not to mention they are considered as similarily situated.

Similarly Situated Nolo s Free Dictionary of Law Terms and Legal Definitions

So Sayeth the USSC.

Pop's meltdown over legal same gender marriage continues.

And Syriously's nervous breakdown over the ramifications of his genderless society actually looks like continues.

Oh, all these arguments were first yours.....

Compelling state interest

Similarily Situated

And you are really this unprepared?

Now that's funny!

And Pop's meltdown continues.

But I applaud his efforts to gain access to the women's showers.

You still pissed? Cuz gays have been using bathrooms like singles bars? Is your party over now?

They have? I had no idea. I've been going into public restrooms and showering in public showers when necessary for over 40 years and never once have I heard a pickup line or seen a disco ball. Where ARE you peeing? Are you sure you've been using public restrooms?

Apparently, the same one as state representative Bob Allen (R-FL).

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi Seawytch
Technically, anything to do with Orientation (or gender based on something other than genetic designation at birth)
is FAITH based, NOT proven scientifically, and falls under CREED.

So equally does the belief that homosexuality is unnatural and against
someone's religion fall under CREED.

Two CREEDS are equal under law.

It is against Constitutional Ethics for the Govt to take one CREED over another.
To impose beliefs either "for or against" homosexuality over the other side.

That is a bias by CREED and form of Discrimination that
violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments which the Civil Rights Act extended to public institutions.

Seawytch I understand that people are abusing their religious freedom
to discriminate against progray beliefs that are equal under law;
but it does not correct the problem to discriminate the other way!

Two wrongs do not make this right.

NEITHER side can abuse govt to discriminate against the beliefs of the other.

Both progay and antigay beliefs and creeds are equal under law
because NEITHER is proven scientifically to be natural/unnatural, choice or behavior, born or not,
so they are BOTH FAITH BASED CREEDS.

You are right that neither should these laws be abused
to discriminate against gay beliefs, and that is what the Christians are saying
also that the laws should not be abused to discriminate against their beliefs
that homosexuality is unnatural but a choice they cannot be required by govt to recognize or support
or associate with if it is against their beliefs.

Nobody is discriminating against Christians. It's against the law in all 50 states. Having to follow a state law that protects others in addition to Christians isn't discrimination.

^ Not True ^
Christians are forced to fund abortion measures they have been fighting to separate from
the same way anti-death penalty opponents have been fighting not to fund that either!

If YOU were forced to fund faith-based activities you felt were outside of govt jurisdiction,
you'd push to separate that from public policy also if it was as serious to you as
these beliefs are to them. Like gay marriage, even if it is only 3-5% of the population,
people are fighting for that. So the same with Christians and their prolife beliefs
where they don't want public institutions having anything to do with abortion that is against their beliefs.

In the meantime, they fight just as hard as the progay advocates were fighting over marriage beliefs.

If you don't consider prolife to be a belief protected by law,
how are you supposed to push for progay beliefs to be protected?

How is that fair , Seawytch

For one group to push to protect the rights of the unborn they BELIEVE to deserve 'equal protection of the laws'
and one group to push to protect the rights of gays and marriage they BELIEVE should be recognized by law.

If YOU push for YOUR beliefs to be endorsed and implemented by Govt
then it would only be fair for the people with Prolife beliefs to have that endorsed and implemented by Govt.

Otherwise, you would be discriminating by CREED -- only using Govt to endorse and establish YOUR beliefs
about gay marriage but when it comes to beliefs about Prolife and protecting the rights of unborn,
SUDDENLY that is faith based and doesn't belong in Govt.
Well, so are the rights of gays and marriage "faith based" where that is arguably outside Govt jurisdiction, too!

So that's discrimination and it is in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and Civil Rights Act.

If you don't see this bias going on, you are equally part of the
problem you point out with anti-gay bias who only see their beliefs as valid for Govt to endorse
but don't want other people's beliefs pushed through Govt. So you are both discriminating against the beliefs of the others; you are equally willing to push beliefs through Govt as long as they are YOUR beliefs and values.
That is violating the First Amendment to abuse Govt to establish beliefs (unless it by consent of all people so there is no faith-based imposition or exclusion going on).

In a word, no.

Christians are not being discriminated against by having to obey laws.

Hi Seawytch
Laws are unconstitutional if the govt is abused to establish faith-based beliefs.
The Christians are arguing the health care and marriage laws are imposing beliefs through govt.
And I agree that this is unconstitutional, outside govt authority.

We don't expect atheists and secular humanists to obey biased laws
that the Christians pass through govt.

For years Christians did expect 'atheists' to obey biased laws.

Matter of fact- Americans are expected to obey the law- every law.

If it is just as wrong to impose religious biased laws on Atheists
then why turn around and do this same wrong as a reaction? Do two wrongs make it right?
Create justice? Balance the scales?

I see both sides defending their beliefs and interests as equally imposed upon by the other. So it seems to create war,
double injustice where both sides have been wronged, instead of bringing justice and peace!

Sorry but I find if you are going to CORRECT a wrong, you cannot turn around and commit the same offense.
You end up with twice the violations on both sides, and twice as much to correct now!
It also furthers the damage to the integrity and relationship between people and govt.
So now there is triple the damage to correct, the wrongs suffered on both sides,
and the damaged relations and faith in govt that needs to be restored on top of it all.

 

[Faun]

And they are protected from discrimination in Public Accommodation in some states. Maybe even more than gays are protected in.

ELLIOTT-LARSEN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT Act 453 of 1976
AN ACT to define civil rights; to prohibit discriminatory practices, policies, and customs in the exercise of those rights based upon religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, familial status, or marital status;

Hi Seawytch
Technically, anything to do with Orientation (or gender based on something other than genetic designation at birth)
is FAITH based, NOT proven scientifically, and falls under CREED.

So equally does the belief that homosexuality is unnatural and against
someone's religion fall under CREED.

Two CREEDS are equal under law.

It is against Constitutional Ethics for the Govt to take one CREED over another.
To impose beliefs either "for or against" homosexuality over the other side.

That is a bias by CREED and form of Discrimination that
violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments which the Civil Rights Act extended to public institutions.

Seawytch I understand that people are abusing their religious freedom
to discriminate against progray beliefs that are equal under law;
but it does not correct the problem to discriminate the other way!

Two wrongs do not make this right.

NEITHER side can abuse govt to discriminate against the beliefs of the other.

Both progay and antigay beliefs and creeds are equal under law
because NEITHER is proven scientifically to be natural/unnatural, choice or behavior, born or not,
so they are BOTH FAITH BASED CREEDS.

You are right that neither should these laws be abused
to discriminate against gay beliefs, and that is what the Christians are saying
also that the laws should not be abused to discriminate against their beliefs
that homosexuality is unnatural but a choice they cannot be required by govt to recognize or support
or associate with if it is against their beliefs.

Nobody is discriminating against Christians. It's against the law in all 50 states. Having to follow a state law that protects others in addition to Christians isn't discrimination.

^ Not True ^
Christians are forced to fund abortion measures they have been fighting to separate from
the same way anti-death penalty opponents have been fighting not to fund that either!

If YOU were forced to fund faith-based activities you felt were outside of govt jurisdiction,
you'd push to separate that from public policy also if it was as serious to you as
these beliefs are to them. Like gay marriage, even if it is only 3-5% of the population,
people are fighting for that. So the same with Christians and their prolife beliefs
where they don't want public institutions having anything to do with abortion that is against their beliefs.

In the meantime, they fight just as hard as the progay advocates were fighting over marriage beliefs.

If you don't consider prolife to be a belief protected by law,
how are you supposed to push for progay beliefs to be protected?

How is that fair , Seawytch

For one group to push to protect the rights of the unborn they BELIEVE to deserve 'equal protection of the laws'
and one group to push to protect the rights of gays and marriage they BELIEVE should be recognized by law.

If YOU push for YOUR beliefs to be endorsed and implemented by Govt
then it would only be fair for the people with Prolife beliefs to have that endorsed and implemented by Govt.

Otherwise, you would be discriminating by CREED -- only using Govt to endorse and establish YOUR beliefs
about gay marriage but when it comes to beliefs about Prolife and protecting the rights of unborn,
SUDDENLY that is faith based and doesn't belong in Govt.
Well, so are the rights of gays and marriage "faith based" where that is arguably outside Govt jurisdiction, too!

So that's discrimination and it is in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and Civil Rights Act.

If you don't see this bias going on, you are equally part of the
problem you point out with anti-gay bias who only see their beliefs as valid for Govt to endorse
but don't want other people's beliefs pushed through Govt. So you are both discriminating against the beliefs of the others; you are equally willing to push beliefs through Govt as long as they are YOUR beliefs and values.
That is violating the First Amendment to abuse Govt to establish beliefs (unless it by consent of all people so there is no faith-based imposition or exclusion going on).

In a word, no.

Christians are not being discriminated against by having to obey laws.

Hi Seawytch
Laws are unconstitutional if the govt is abused to establish faith-based beliefs.
The Christians are arguing the health care and marriage laws are imposing beliefs through govt.
And I agree that this is unconstitutional, outside govt authority.

We don't expect atheists and secular humanists to obey biased laws
that the Christians pass through govt. The laws against abortion were struck down
because of due process issues; and the arguments to reinstate them based
on "BELIEFS" in when life begins are struck down as FAITH BASED.

So Seawytch if the shoe was on the other foot,
and the Christians got majority rule of Congress or 5 of out 9 jjudges on the Supreme Court to
rule in favor of Prolife Beliefs being protected by law,
then you and me and others would be yelling that's not Constitutional either.

The same way Rosa Parks and others DISOBEYED the laws on segregation to protest
(and landed in jail for it, including Dr. King), that's why we see the Christians facing
fines and penalties rather than compromise their beliefs which the law discriminates against.

Seawytch I think you are a fair person and will be able to see
both sides of these issues.

The issue of Marriage should be kept OUT of Govt
or it's like tearing the baby in half. Both sides want
THEIR beliefs protected, but Govt cannot endorse
one belief over the other. So Govt either has to remain
neutral, only endorse neutrally written laws that all sides
agree does not impose or exclude any religious angle
that is unfair to part of the population the laws are supposed to represent equally and inclusively,
or stay out of marriage and revert all marriage and benefits and social programs
attached to these institutions back to private groups to organize by their own members' beliefs
and not put this on govt.

This is why we SEPARATE church and state, to keep beliefs out of govt
instead of trying to nationalize one system for all people who don't believe in the same values.

With secular laws that can remain objective, that's where govt can be used to mandate one policy.
But NOT SO with anything to do with BELIEFS. Govt cannot force anyone to change their BELIEFS.

So this is where Constitutional laws and principles draw the line.
Secular humanists and liberals call this Separation of church and state
but are failing to follow this policy when it comes to humanist/secular beliefs.

All beliefs and creeds should be treated the same way.

Seawytch you cannot make it illegal for someone to practice their beliefs
and then turn around and say they are not obeying the law.
IT IS AGAINST THE CONSTITUTION TO ESTABLISH A RELIGIOUS BIAS.

So that is where the contradiction is that is causing both sides to feel the other is violating laws.

No, the government should not stay out of marriage. Civil marriage in the U.S. is the legal joining of two people by contract. I understand you want them out since they rendered a decision you can't live with ... but what difference does that make? And the government does not render decisions based on the book of Leviticus; or any other book in the Bible.