Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The same "process" followed in Loving was followed in Obergefell. Same EXACT process except gays had to wait until they were "popular".I thought loving was correct, and my reasons for not liking Obergefell is again with the process, not the end result.
and it was right for loving, and wrong for obergefell.
Uh huh, of course it was. I guess we should be happy you're only homophobic and not racist. Yay?
And the same exact process will be used for family marriage and polygamy.
if a state legislature wants to allow polygamy, then I am OK with it. same with marriages between some relations. Some States already allow marriage between 1st cousins.
Try that test with any other protected class. ALL CAN BE OBJECTIVELY TESTED THAT THEY ARE WHO THEY CLAIM TO BE.
Please describe the "objective test" for religious beliefs.
Thank you.
>>>>
The same "process" followed in Loving was followed in Obergefell. Same EXACT process except gays had to wait until they were "popular".
and it was right for loving, and wrong for obergefell.
Uh huh, of course it was. I guess we should be happy you're only homophobic and not racist. Yay?
And the same exact process will be used for family marriage and polygamy.
if a state legislature wants to allow polygamy, then I am OK with it. same with marriages between some relations. Some States already allow marriage between 1st cousins.
Sorry if you misunderstood my post. If we are talking process, as you were previously, there can be no limitation to who, within a family can marry.
Personally, I would oppose such a thing as a mother marrying a son, but there is no Complelling state interest in the denial once you understand what the requirements NOW are for a valid marriage.
There are none, but then again, religion is not a protected class, it is a freedom guarenteed within the Constitution itself
There are none, but then again, religion is not a protected class, it is a freedom guarenteed within the Constitution itself
WTF?
Religion is a protected class both under Federal law and State of Oregon Public Accommodation law.
>>>>
and it was right for loving, and wrong for obergefell.
Uh huh, of course it was. I guess we should be happy you're only homophobic and not racist. Yay?
And the same exact process will be used for family marriage and polygamy.
if a state legislature wants to allow polygamy, then I am OK with it. same with marriages between some relations. Some States already allow marriage between 1st cousins.
Sorry if you misunderstood my post. If we are talking process, as you were previously, there can be no limitation to who, within a family can marry.
Personally, I would oppose such a thing as a mother marrying a son, but there is no Complelling state interest in the denial once you understand what the requirements NOW are for a valid marriage.
Personally I think anything closer than 2nd cousin is skeevey, (and 2nd cousin is 1/2 skeevey), but yes, when using the court logic, they have dug themselves a hole when it comes to further expansion of the marriage contract via court action.
Of course, since the Court arbitrarily decided it can get involved in this, it can also arbitrarily decide where to set the line contrary to its previous rulings. Once you open the "I do this because I like it" bag, you can't close it easily.
First: Please leave the contexts of my posts in place when replying.
Do you want to discuss how the ratification (voting) process of the constitution of the United States of America is different from court inacted protected group status?
Really, that is High School civics stuff.
The reason for the Baker's decision not to work the wedding is a bad one. Full of misconceptions and false premises to back their rationale. Still they should have the right to serve whomever they wish. There are lots of bakers without bias and disrespect. People should be able to hire who they wish. Rent to who they wish. Etc. etc.
Let me make it clear. I support the baker's right to serve whom they wish. I do not condone the reasoning behind their decision. It is hateful, stupid, ignorant. It is not love thy neighbor, understanding, accepting. Those are some "Christian values" and the ones Christians most often mouth but disregard as they see fit.
First: Please leave the contexts of my posts in place when replying.
Do you want to discuss how the ratification (voting) process of the constitution of the United States of America is different from court inacted protected group status?
Really, that is High School civics stuff.
You said religion wasn't a protected class. Yes it is protected class both under Federal Civil Rights law and Oregon Public Accommodation law.
Anything else is a deflection from what you said being incorrect.
>>>>
The reason for the Baker's decision not to work the wedding is a bad one. Full of misconceptions and false premises to back their rationale. Still they should have the right to serve whomever they wish. There are lots of bakers without bias and disrespect. People should be able to hire who they wish. Rent to who they wish. Etc. etc.
Let me make it clear. I support the baker's right to serve whom they wish. I do not condone the reasoning behind their decision. It is hateful, stupid, ignorant. It is not love thy neighbor, understanding, accepting. Those are some "Christian values" and the ones Christians most often mouth but disregard as they see fit.
Thank you for all that. However, I am not a believer. The Christian god does not exist. While Christian philosophy is full of wonderful sayings and values, none are holy. They are all rather simple and common sense. We should all live by many of them. Those being the way others are treated. Human respect and dignity. If you want a more rational picture of what really happened you should begin with the writings of Zecharia Sitchin and the Sumerian mythology/creation tale.
The reason for the Baker's decision not to work the wedding is a bad one. Full of misconceptions and false premises to back their rationale. Still they should have the right to serve whomever they wish. There are lots of bakers without bias and disrespect. People should be able to hire who they wish. Rent to who they wish. Etc. etc.
Let me make it clear. I support the baker's right to serve whom they wish. I do not condone the reasoning behind their decision. It is hateful, stupid, ignorant. It is not love thy neighbor, understanding, accepting. Those are some "Christian values" and the ones Christians most often mouth but disregard as they see fit.
Welcome to USMB social philosopher. The Klein's refusal to serve the lesbians on a legal-discrimination-hunt at their shop was based on Christian edicts. Jude 1 says that the spread of homosexuality as a cultural value is an insidious one in the human herd. Since it is behavioral and sex habits so hard to break once ingrained and passed on to children via example and coercion, it spreads like wildfire; any condoned kink. It got so bad in Sodom in fact that according to the Bible, God had to come and destroy the entire city and left Christians with a warning: "Do not ever enable that type of society again or you will be punished in the eternal flames of damnation for eternity". Apparently God's reasoning was that if a society is so filled with objectionable addictive imprinted behaviors, even a soul with the best intentions at birth has no chance within that milieu at redemption.
So hence why for Christians it's such a big deal to enable homosexuals "as normal" in a society. No greater perversion could exist for a Christian than the idea of the nuclear family (mother, father, children) being completely dismantled to where there are two adults have gay sex with an absence of either a mother or father for life per a legal contract no less....while the children look on and learn...and learn...
Read Jude 1 (New Testament-Jesus's words recounted) when you get a minute. I guess long story short, God gets pissed off and punishes those who tamper with the matrix of the classroom to where they tear down the walls even of the classroom itself and there is no classroom left.
So the Klein's refusal, though inconceivable to you because you've heard way more surficial press about Jesus' teachings on "love thy neighbor" etc. etc. is still just as integral to being a Christian. When "love thy neighbor" goes from a sublime cerebral concept to instead an interpretation that renders into sticking your whanger in your neighbor's bunghole as "love", God gets pissed at the adulteration of his Sublime Dictionary. The Christian mandates aren't all fluff and "it's all good" stuff. There are some stern warnings in the New Testament still, even though Jesus was the "live and let live type". He was the "live and let live...EXCEPT.."these unforgivable things..." messiah..
Thank you for all that. However, I am not a believer. The Christian god does not exist. While Christian philosophy is full of wonderful sayings and values, none are holy. They are all rather simple and common sense. We should all live by many of them. Those being the way others are treated. Human respect and dignity. If you want a more rational picture of what really happened you should begin with the writings of Zecharia Sitchin and the Sumerian mythology/creation tale.
Well fortunately, the 1st Amendment exists and so therefore so does God. And the word "holy" just means "do this or else". There is nothing more undignified than forcing children to watch two men sodomizing each other "as socially legitimate" and calling themselves "your parents" doing so. The mother is completely vital and missing from that extremely undignified scenario.
If there was a Sublime Watcher over the human condition and progression of souls in the physical matrix, that Entity would have certain systems in place for testing those souls. If you assume there could be a Higher Power than yourself. Yes, most of God's rules are based on common sense. But common sense can be skewed by the stamp children receive in the matrix they are born in. For instance, "common sense" to white infants born in Germany in the 1930s was "Jews should be killed" by the time their minds sealed in school. That was, in that day, time and place = to "common sense". God understanding that all common sense is relative within a given time and society, set out some eternal hard rules to endure no matter what psycho new trend homo sapiens dreamed up as a culture.
And apparently one of those rules (maybe a lesson learned from Ancient Greece where "common sense" was to take a boy of 6 from his mother and sodomize him until he looked too old; and where that child older then took a child for himself to sodomize...etc.) was "sexual deviance can become so perverse and pernicious as to overtake entire societies".
So Common Sense is different from common sense. See what I mean? And hence the reason the Kleins cannot serve "gay wedding cakes" to homosexuals. Understanding it involves the wisdom and depth of the Sublime Plan; or at least a rough familiarity with it.
There are none, but then again, religion is not a protected class, it is a freedom guarenteed within the Constitution itself
Any deflection is yours. I never said that religion is not protected, you want to say protected class, knock your socks off. It IS a constitutionally protection RATIFIED BY THE STATES as opposed to one legislated by the bench.
There is a huge difference, you understand that right?
There are none, but then again, religion is not a protected class, it is a freedom guarenteed within the Constitution itselfAny deflection is yours. I never said that religion is not protected, you want to say protected class, knock your socks off. It IS a constitutionally protection RATIFIED BY THE STATES as opposed to one legislated by the bench.
There is a huge difference, you understand that right?
You said it wasn't a protected class. You were wrong. It is a protected class under Federal Civil Rights law and Oregon Public Accommodation law.
Constitutional protections apply to government. "Protected Class" (in the realm of Public Accommodation laws) refers to protections and places of business (non-government) - also referred to as Public Accommodations - and other private entities (i.e. customers).
>>>>
Thank you for all that. However, I am not a believer. The Christian god does not exist. While Christian philosophy is full of wonderful sayings and values, none are holy. They are all rather simple and common sense. We should all live by many of them. Those being the way others are treated. Human respect and dignity. If you want a more rational picture of what really happened you should begin with the writings of Zecharia Sitchin and the Sumerian mythology/creation tale.
And while you're at it, prove water isn't wet.And, please state, of those groups in which the protective status is given by the courts, which cannot be verified by an objective physical examination? There is but one. Sexual orientation. With that we are forced to simply take their word for it. It stands alone.
And, please state, of those groups in which the protective status is given by the courts, which cannot be verified by an objective physical examination? There is but one. Sexual orientation. With that we are forced to simply take their word for it. It stands alone.
Can you imagine? Here's a lesbian testifying she is a lesbian: "I swear that even though I'm attracted to a female partner who for all the world, acts like, talks like, walks like, dresses like a man, and who wears a strapon dildo during sex with me, I am STILL SOLIDLY a "lesbian".
I mean, we have to step back and look at what the word even means? On the surface "simple...take her at her word." Going deeper (where challenged law has to go) "not so simple after all"..
And, please state, of those groups in which the protective status is given by the courts
