Can The Govt FORCE You To Promote A Choice That Goes Against Your Religion? The Fight Continues...

[emilynghiem]

The government has the power to make discrimination illegal. That should be obvious.

It should be obviously insane.

Nevertheless, you're right. The government has the power to do whatever we let them get away with.

That's the core principle behind democratic government. The power resides with the People.

Dear NYcarbineer
and it's intellectual honesty that determines how much "the PEOPLE" also INCLUDES the people who don't believe
in your policies that are being railroaded through govt, in violation of the equal rights of these opponents to representation.

If you are only counting the voices and consent of people who AGREE with your beliefs as "the people"
then you are not counting, including or protecting all "people" equally.

You may think majority rule or court ruling is enough to establish a policy,
but when it comes to beliefs and creeds, this isn't up for govt to decide AT ALL.

That is what the argument is about.
Pushing faith-based beliefs on the public through govt
by treating it like it's completely secular and science based,
when it's more like Christians pushing right to life beliefs through govt
that are equally faith based.

If we allow transgender beliefs and policies to be pushed on people,
forcing them to change their beliefs and comply or suffer penalties,
what's to stop right to life Christians from pushing their beliefs
and policies on people, forcing opposition to change their beliefs or suffer penalties.

If we are truly fair and transparent and "intellectually honest"
we will see it is DISCRIMINATORY
to reject right to life policies as faith based and not agree upon,
(and which cause unintended consequences that infringe on equal rights and choice of others)
while FORCING bathroom policies that are faith based and not agreed upon
(and which cause unintended consequence that infringe on the equal rights and choice of others).

Sorry if you cannot see the parallels here, NYcarbineer
When people do not consent to a policy, no means no.
Where policies involve conflicts between people's beliefs that are equal,
decisions cannot be imposed by govt in violation of one or the other,
but policies must be made by consent in order to be fair to all people affected.

People have the right to redress grievances, and this can be
done until a consensus is reached. Using neutral or single stalls
does not require any beliefs to be changed. All this requires is
changing perception toward respecting all beliefs and objections equally under law,
instead of judging and punishing one side's beliefs,
where it is not the job of govt to take sides and endorse one belief while penalizing another.

 

[emilynghiem]

The court allows people to discriminate....you are free to hate anyone you wish
But once you enter the public domain as a business, the business has to treat everyone equitably

So a Satanist has a legal right to force a Christian baker to make a cake that says "Lucifer is the Best!"? Or does he just have a right to buy a blank cake and decorate it that way himself? Or just not say a word about his religion and order a dozen doughnuts?

In the upcoming legal battles, the different levels of participation in the offensive behavior will be addressed. This isn't a case of the artists refusing to serve gays at all, in just regular non-suggestive art. It is a case of the LGBT cult forcing them to iconize and enable blasphemy to their own Christian religion. A gay wanting a picture of a dozen roses on a table in still art is a bit different from them wanting a picture of two men getting married. The court isn't just going to give that last point a brush away of the hand. You'd better believe they're going to ponder it. Because of the 1st Amendment.

Essentially, PA laws are tantamount to the government establishing a religion that others must follow. There is nothing intrinsic about LGBT other than behavior and dogma. It is not static like a race. It walks, talks and acts like a religious cult. And the government cannot force Christians to enable it or to promote it or practice it.

If you make a cake for one group you have to do it for all

rightwinger and Silhouette
making and selling a cake is one thing, and that has been established,
and in most cases I've seen the bakers agreed to that.

it is another thing to compel and regulate "free speech"

One or two cases of photographers failed to defend this right to refuse:
One was forced to go photograph a gay wedding, and I think another may have been fined and lost the appeal.

I don't agree with that idea that anyone can sue someone for not wanting to
accept a photography or video contract, for whatever reason. That work is highly subjective and
an artist may not want to take a job. It's not like the customers had no other choices or they would go without.

I'm sure other people would be happy to have that work, why not support an LGBT business that wants that job???

It is different when you are not just making or selling an object to a person,
but being forced to write, draw or express something the artist does not agree to freely.

Can you force someone to print T-shirts saying
"I'm a racist, I love Trump" or "Deport Lazy Mexicans"
or "Heil Hitler Full of grace!" with a photo of Mother Mary
and sue a devout Catholic business if they won't print it for you?

Someone else asked on here, well, if prostitution is legal in Nevada,
can someone be forced to have sex with someone?
So if they are gay or transgender they can sue you if you refuse?

Can an actor be sued if they refuse a contract?

I asked what if I sew women's suits,
can someone sue me if I refuse to sew men's suits.
Is that discrimination by gender?

Where does this end?
What happened to respect for people's consent and free choice?

And why isn't it considered "discrimination and harassment" (intended or not)
if someone insists on imposing on and suing a Christian baker for their beliefs,
instead of respecting them and their beliefs by the same standards,
when there were other choices that would have agreed!

 

[NYcarbineer]

The government has the power to make discrimination illegal. That should be obvious.

It should be obviously insane.

Nevertheless, you're right. The government has the power to do whatever we let them get away with.

That's the core principle behind democratic government. The power resides with the People.

Dear NYcarbineer
and it's intellectual honesty that determines how much "the PEOPLE" also INCLUDES the people who don't believe
in your policies that are being railroaded through govt, in violation of the equal rights of these opponents to representation.

If you are only counting the voices and consent of people who AGREE with your beliefs as "the people"
then you are not counting, including or protecting all "people" equally.

You may think majority rule or court ruling is enough to establish a policy,
but when it comes to beliefs and creeds, this isn't up for govt to decide AT ALL.

That is what the argument is about.
Pushing faith-based beliefs on the public through govt
by treating it like it's completely secular and science based,
when it's more like Christians pushing right to life beliefs through govt
that are equally faith based.

If we allow transgender beliefs and policies to be pushed on people,
forcing them to change their beliefs and comply or suffer penalties,
what's to stop right to life Christians from pushing their beliefs
and policies on people, forcing opposition to change their beliefs or suffer penalties.

If we are truly fair and transparent and "intellectually honest"
we will see it is DISCRIMINATORY
to reject right to life policies as faith based and not agree upon,
(and which cause unintended consequences that infringe on equal rights and choice of others)
while FORCING bathroom policies that are faith based and not agreed upon
(and which cause unintended consequence that infringe on the equal rights and choice of others).

Sorry if you cannot see the parallels here, NYcarbineer
When people do not consent to a policy, no means no.
Where policies involve conflicts between people's beliefs that are equal,
decisions cannot be imposed by govt in violation of one or the other,
but policies must be made by consent in order to be fair to all people affected.

People have the right to redress grievances, and this can be
done until a consensus is reached. Using neutral or single stalls
does not require any beliefs to be changed. All this requires is
changing perception toward respecting all beliefs and objections equally under law,
instead of judging and punishing one side's beliefs,
where it is not the job of govt to take sides and endorse one belief while penalizing another.

A person wants service in a store open to the public. The proprietor refuses because the person is of some particular race,creed, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

They both can't win.

It IS the job of government to take sides. The government takes the side of one or the other based on the rule of the laws in place, up to and including the Constitution. The laws that are in place are those put there by the representatives of the People.

That is how government works. It is not that complicated.

 

[rightwinger]

If you make a cake for one group you have to do it for all

It's not that cut and dried. Should a black baker be fined or jailed for refusing to print "KKK is the way!" on a cake with a bunch of hooded figures iced onto it?

You're going to find there's going to be a debate about what "group" means and what its origins are. The clarification on the origins of LGBT is going to come to the fore in the coming months and years. And it will be exposed for the cult it is. At that point, everything will change legally as to what are "rights" for cult members/rebellious behavioralists vs actual static classes like race.

Again you confuse being required to provide a service you don't normally provide with refusing service to one group

You can say ...I do not do KKK cakes
You cannot say ....I will do a "Congratulations on your Wedding" cake for straights but not gays

 

[rightwinger]

The court allows people to discriminate....you are free to hate anyone you wish
But once you enter the public domain as a business, the business has to treat everyone equitably

So a Satanist has a legal right to force a Christian baker to make a cake that says "Lucifer is the Best!"? Or does he just have a right to buy a blank cake and decorate it that way himself? Or just not say a word about his religion and order a dozen doughnuts?

In the upcoming legal battles, the different levels of participation in the offensive behavior will be addressed. This isn't a case of the artists refusing to serve gays at all, in just regular non-suggestive art. It is a case of the LGBT cult forcing them to iconize and enable blasphemy to their own Christian religion. A gay wanting a picture of a dozen roses on a table in still art is a bit different from them wanting a picture of two men getting married. The court isn't just going to give that last point a brush away of the hand. You'd better believe they're going to ponder it. Because of the 1st Amendment.

Essentially, PA laws are tantamount to the government establishing a religion that others must follow. There is nothing intrinsic about LGBT other than behavior and dogma. It is not static like a race. It walks, talks and acts like a religious cult. And the government cannot force Christians to enable it or to promote it or practice it.

If you make a cake for one group you have to do it for all

rightwinger and Silhouette
making and selling a cake is one thing, and that has been established,
and in most cases I've seen the bakers agreed to that.

it is another thing to compel and regulate "free speech"

One or two cases of photographers failed to defend this right to refuse:
One was forced to go photograph a gay wedding, and I think another may have been fined and lost the appeal.

I don't agree with that idea that anyone can sue someone for not wanting to
accept a photography or video contract, for whatever reason. That work is highly subjective and
an artist may not want to take a job. It's not like the customers had no other choices or they would go without.

I'm sure other people would be happy to have that work, why not support an LGBT business that wants that job???

It is different when you are not just making or selling an object to a person,
but being forced to write, draw or express something the artist does not agree to freely.

Can you force someone to print T-shirts saying
"I'm a racist, I love Trump" or "Deport Lazy Mexicans"
or "Heil Hitler Full of grace!" with a photo of Mother Mary
and sue a devout Catholic business if they won't print it for you?

Someone else asked on here, well, if prostitution is legal in Nevada,
can someone be forced to have sex with someone?
So if they are gay or transgender they can sue you if you refuse?

Can an actor be sued if they refuse a contract?

I asked what if I sew women's suits,
can someone sue me if I refuse to sew men's suits.
Is that discrimination by gender?

Where does this end?
What happened to respect for people's consent and free choice?

And why isn't it considered "discrimination and harassment" (intended or not)
if someone insists on imposing on and suing a Christian baker for their beliefs,
instead of respecting them and their beliefs by the same standards,
when there were other choices that would have agreed!

As usual, you are going way overboard with your logic

Think more along the lines of "we don't serve negroes" than forcing people to provide services they normally don't provide

 

[dblack]

The government has the power to make discrimination illegal. That should be obvious.

It should be obviously insane.

Nevertheless, you're right. The government has the power to do whatever we let them get away with.

That's the core principle behind democratic government. The power resides with the People.

Dear NYcarbineer
and it's intellectual honesty that determines how much "the PEOPLE" also INCLUDES the people who don't believe
in your policies that are being railroaded through govt, in violation of the equal rights of these opponents to representation.

If you are only counting the voices and consent of people who AGREE with your beliefs as "the people"
then you are not counting, including or protecting all "people" equally.

You may think majority rule or court ruling is enough to establish a policy,
but when it comes to beliefs and creeds, this isn't up for govt to decide AT ALL.

That is what the argument is about.
Pushing faith-based beliefs on the public through govt
by treating it like it's completely secular and science based,
when it's more like Christians pushing right to life beliefs through govt
that are equally faith based.

If we allow transgender beliefs and policies to be pushed on people,
forcing them to change their beliefs and comply or suffer penalties,
what's to stop right to life Christians from pushing their beliefs
and policies on people, forcing opposition to change their beliefs or suffer penalties.

If we are truly fair and transparent and "intellectually honest"
we will see it is DISCRIMINATORY
to reject right to life policies as faith based and not agree upon,
(and which cause unintended consequences that infringe on equal rights and choice of others)
while FORCING bathroom policies that are faith based and not agreed upon
(and which cause unintended consequence that infringe on the equal rights and choice of others).

Sorry if you cannot see the parallels here, NYcarbineer
When people do not consent to a policy, no means no.
Where policies involve conflicts between people's beliefs that are equal,
decisions cannot be imposed by govt in violation of one or the other,
but policies must be made by consent in order to be fair to all people affected.

People have the right to redress grievances, and this can be
done until a consensus is reached. Using neutral or single stalls
does not require any beliefs to be changed. All this requires is
changing perception toward respecting all beliefs and objections equally under law,
instead of judging and punishing one side's beliefs,
where it is not the job of govt to take sides and endorse one belief while penalizing another.

A person wants service in a store open to the public. The proprietor refuses because the person is of some particular race,creed, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

They both can't win.

It IS the job of government to take sides. The government takes the side of one or the other based on the rule of the laws in place, up to and including the Constitution. The laws that are in place are those put there by the representatives of the People.

That is how government works. It is not that complicated.

It might be how you want government to work, but it's untenable. It makes democracy unworkable. It should never be the job of government to 'take sides'. The job of government should be to act as an impartial referee, to ensure that our interactions are mutually voluntary, and that no one is bullied. It sounds like you want government to pick who gets to do the bullying in any given situation.

 

[rightwinger]

The government has the power to make discrimination illegal. That should be obvious.

It should be obviously insane.

Nevertheless, you're right. The government has the power to do whatever we let them get away with.

That's the core principle behind democratic government. The power resides with the People.

Dear NYcarbineer
and it's intellectual honesty that determines how much "the PEOPLE" also INCLUDES the people who don't believe
in your policies that are being railroaded through govt, in violation of the equal rights of these opponents to representation.

If you are only counting the voices and consent of people who AGREE with your beliefs as "the people"
then you are not counting, including or protecting all "people" equally.

You may think majority rule or court ruling is enough to establish a policy,
but when it comes to beliefs and creeds, this isn't up for govt to decide AT ALL.

That is what the argument is about.
Pushing faith-based beliefs on the public through govt
by treating it like it's completely secular and science based,
when it's more like Christians pushing right to life beliefs through govt
that are equally faith based.

If we allow transgender beliefs and policies to be pushed on people,
forcing them to change their beliefs and comply or suffer penalties,
what's to stop right to life Christians from pushing their beliefs
and policies on people, forcing opposition to change their beliefs or suffer penalties.

If we are truly fair and transparent and "intellectually honest"
we will see it is DISCRIMINATORY
to reject right to life policies as faith based and not agree upon,
(and which cause unintended consequences that infringe on equal rights and choice of others)
while FORCING bathroom policies that are faith based and not agreed upon
(and which cause unintended consequence that infringe on the equal rights and choice of others).

Sorry if you cannot see the parallels here, NYcarbineer
When people do not consent to a policy, no means no.
Where policies involve conflicts between people's beliefs that are equal,
decisions cannot be imposed by govt in violation of one or the other,
but policies must be made by consent in order to be fair to all people affected.

People have the right to redress grievances, and this can be
done until a consensus is reached. Using neutral or single stalls
does not require any beliefs to be changed. All this requires is
changing perception toward respecting all beliefs and objections equally under law,
instead of judging and punishing one side's beliefs,
where it is not the job of govt to take sides and endorse one belief while penalizing another.

A person wants service in a store open to the public. The proprietor refuses because the person is of some particular race,creed, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

They both can't win.

It IS the job of government to take sides. The government takes the side of one or the other based on the rule of the laws in place, up to and including the Constitution. The laws that are in place are those put there by the representatives of the People.

That is how government works. It is not that complicated.

It might be how you want government to work, but it's untenable. It makes democracy unworkable. It should never be the job of government to 'take sides'. The job of government should be to act as an impartial referee, to ensure that our interactions are mutually voluntary, and that no one is bullied. It sounds like you want government to pick who gets to do the bullying in any given situation.

Very true...the Government is a referee
They make sure the rules apply equitably to all people

In this case, gays are allowed to marry like everyone else

 

[dblack]

It should be obviously insane.

Nevertheless, you're right. The government has the power to do whatever we let them get away with.

That's the core principle behind democratic government. The power resides with the People.

Dear NYcarbineer
and it's intellectual honesty that determines how much "the PEOPLE" also INCLUDES the people who don't believe
in your policies that are being railroaded through govt, in violation of the equal rights of these opponents to representation.

If you are only counting the voices and consent of people who AGREE with your beliefs as "the people"
then you are not counting, including or protecting all "people" equally.

You may think majority rule or court ruling is enough to establish a policy,
but when it comes to beliefs and creeds, this isn't up for govt to decide AT ALL.

That is what the argument is about.
Pushing faith-based beliefs on the public through govt
by treating it like it's completely secular and science based,
when it's more like Christians pushing right to life beliefs through govt
that are equally faith based.

If we allow transgender beliefs and policies to be pushed on people,
forcing them to change their beliefs and comply or suffer penalties,
what's to stop right to life Christians from pushing their beliefs
and policies on people, forcing opposition to change their beliefs or suffer penalties.

If we are truly fair and transparent and "intellectually honest"
we will see it is DISCRIMINATORY
to reject right to life policies as faith based and not agree upon,
(and which cause unintended consequences that infringe on equal rights and choice of others)
while FORCING bathroom policies that are faith based and not agreed upon
(and which cause unintended consequence that infringe on the equal rights and choice of others).

Sorry if you cannot see the parallels here, NYcarbineer
When people do not consent to a policy, no means no.
Where policies involve conflicts between people's beliefs that are equal,
decisions cannot be imposed by govt in violation of one or the other,
but policies must be made by consent in order to be fair to all people affected.

People have the right to redress grievances, and this can be
done until a consensus is reached. Using neutral or single stalls
does not require any beliefs to be changed. All this requires is
changing perception toward respecting all beliefs and objections equally under law,
instead of judging and punishing one side's beliefs,
where it is not the job of govt to take sides and endorse one belief while penalizing another.

A person wants service in a store open to the public. The proprietor refuses because the person is of some particular race,creed, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

They both can't win.

It IS the job of government to take sides. The government takes the side of one or the other based on the rule of the laws in place, up to and including the Constitution. The laws that are in place are those put there by the representatives of the People.

That is how government works. It is not that complicated.

It might be how you want government to work, but it's untenable. It makes democracy unworkable. It should never be the job of government to 'take sides'. The job of government should be to act as an impartial referee, to ensure that our interactions are mutually voluntary, and that no one is bullied. It sounds like you want government to pick who gets to do the bullying in any given situation.

Very true...the Government is a referee
They make sure the rules apply equitably to all people

In this case, gays are allowed to marry like everyone else

That's not what we're discussing. Try to keep up.

 

[rightwinger]

That's the core principle behind democratic government. The power resides with the People.

Dear NYcarbineer
and it's intellectual honesty that determines how much "the PEOPLE" also INCLUDES the people who don't believe
in your policies that are being railroaded through govt, in violation of the equal rights of these opponents to representation.

If you are only counting the voices and consent of people who AGREE with your beliefs as "the people"
then you are not counting, including or protecting all "people" equally.

You may think majority rule or court ruling is enough to establish a policy,
but when it comes to beliefs and creeds, this isn't up for govt to decide AT ALL.

That is what the argument is about.
Pushing faith-based beliefs on the public through govt
by treating it like it's completely secular and science based,
when it's more like Christians pushing right to life beliefs through govt
that are equally faith based.

If we allow transgender beliefs and policies to be pushed on people,
forcing them to change their beliefs and comply or suffer penalties,
what's to stop right to life Christians from pushing their beliefs
and policies on people, forcing opposition to change their beliefs or suffer penalties.

If we are truly fair and transparent and "intellectually honest"
we will see it is DISCRIMINATORY
to reject right to life policies as faith based and not agree upon,
(and which cause unintended consequences that infringe on equal rights and choice of others)
while FORCING bathroom policies that are faith based and not agreed upon
(and which cause unintended consequence that infringe on the equal rights and choice of others).

Sorry if you cannot see the parallels here, NYcarbineer
When people do not consent to a policy, no means no.
Where policies involve conflicts between people's beliefs that are equal,
decisions cannot be imposed by govt in violation of one or the other,
but policies must be made by consent in order to be fair to all people affected.

People have the right to redress grievances, and this can be
done until a consensus is reached. Using neutral or single stalls
does not require any beliefs to be changed. All this requires is
changing perception toward respecting all beliefs and objections equally under law,
instead of judging and punishing one side's beliefs,
where it is not the job of govt to take sides and endorse one belief while penalizing another.

A person wants service in a store open to the public. The proprietor refuses because the person is of some particular race,creed, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

They both can't win.

It IS the job of government to take sides. The government takes the side of one or the other based on the rule of the laws in place, up to and including the Constitution. The laws that are in place are those put there by the representatives of the People.

That is how government works. It is not that complicated.

It might be how you want government to work, but it's untenable. It makes democracy unworkable. It should never be the job of government to 'take sides'. The job of government should be to act as an impartial referee, to ensure that our interactions are mutually voluntary, and that no one is bullied. It sounds like you want government to pick who gets to do the bullying in any given situation.

Very true...the Government is a referee
They make sure the rules apply equitably to all people

In this case, gays are allowed to marry like everyone else

That's not what we're discussing. Try to keep up.

Actually, we are discussing the role of government

Try to keep up

 

[dblack]

Dear NYcarbineer
and it's intellectual honesty that determines how much "the PEOPLE" also INCLUDES the people who don't believe
in your policies that are being railroaded through govt, in violation of the equal rights of these opponents to representation.

If you are only counting the voices and consent of people who AGREE with your beliefs as "the people"
then you are not counting, including or protecting all "people" equally.

You may think majority rule or court ruling is enough to establish a policy,
but when it comes to beliefs and creeds, this isn't up for govt to decide AT ALL.

That is what the argument is about.
Pushing faith-based beliefs on the public through govt
by treating it like it's completely secular and science based,
when it's more like Christians pushing right to life beliefs through govt
that are equally faith based.

If we allow transgender beliefs and policies to be pushed on people,
forcing them to change their beliefs and comply or suffer penalties,
what's to stop right to life Christians from pushing their beliefs
and policies on people, forcing opposition to change their beliefs or suffer penalties.

If we are truly fair and transparent and "intellectually honest"
we will see it is DISCRIMINATORY
to reject right to life policies as faith based and not agree upon,
(and which cause unintended consequences that infringe on equal rights and choice of others)
while FORCING bathroom policies that are faith based and not agreed upon
(and which cause unintended consequence that infringe on the equal rights and choice of others).

Sorry if you cannot see the parallels here, NYcarbineer
When people do not consent to a policy, no means no.
Where policies involve conflicts between people's beliefs that are equal,
decisions cannot be imposed by govt in violation of one or the other,
but policies must be made by consent in order to be fair to all people affected.

People have the right to redress grievances, and this can be
done until a consensus is reached. Using neutral or single stalls
does not require any beliefs to be changed. All this requires is
changing perception toward respecting all beliefs and objections equally under law,
instead of judging and punishing one side's beliefs,
where it is not the job of govt to take sides and endorse one belief while penalizing another.

A person wants service in a store open to the public. The proprietor refuses because the person is of some particular race,creed, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

They both can't win.

It IS the job of government to take sides. The government takes the side of one or the other based on the rule of the laws in place, up to and including the Constitution. The laws that are in place are those put there by the representatives of the People.

That is how government works. It is not that complicated.

It might be how you want government to work, but it's untenable. It makes democracy unworkable. It should never be the job of government to 'take sides'. The job of government should be to act as an impartial referee, to ensure that our interactions are mutually voluntary, and that no one is bullied. It sounds like you want government to pick who gets to do the bullying in any given situation.

Very true...the Government is a referee
They make sure the rules apply equitably to all people

In this case, gays are allowed to marry like everyone else

That's not what we're discussing. Try to keep up.

Actually, we are discussing the role of government

Try to keep up

Bullshit. You're trying to derail the conversation by making it a referendum on gay marriage. Troll off.

 

[rightwinger]

A person wants service in a store open to the public. The proprietor refuses because the person is of some particular race,creed, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

They both can't win.

It IS the job of government to take sides. The government takes the side of one or the other based on the rule of the laws in place, up to and including the Constitution. The laws that are in place are those put there by the representatives of the People.

That is how government works. It is not that complicated.

It might be how you want government to work, but it's untenable. It makes democracy unworkable. It should never be the job of government to 'take sides'. The job of government should be to act as an impartial referee, to ensure that our interactions are mutually voluntary, and that no one is bullied. It sounds like you want government to pick who gets to do the bullying in any given situation.

Very true...the Government is a referee
They make sure the rules apply equitably to all people

In this case, gays are allowed to marry like everyone else

That's not what we're discussing. Try to keep up.

Actually, we are discussing the role of government

Try to keep up

Bullshit. You're trying to derail the conversation by making it a referendum on gay marriage. Troll off.

Maybe you are not in the thread you think you are. I suggest you read the title which refers to both the government and its role in gay marriage

 

[dblack]

It might be how you want government to work, but it's untenable. It makes democracy unworkable. It should never be the job of government to 'take sides'. The job of government should be to act as an impartial referee, to ensure that our interactions are mutually voluntary, and that no one is bullied. It sounds like you want government to pick who gets to do the bullying in any given situation.

Very true...the Government is a referee
They make sure the rules apply equitably to all people

In this case, gays are allowed to marry like everyone else

That's not what we're discussing. Try to keep up.

Actually, we are discussing the role of government

Try to keep up

Bullshit. You're trying to derail the conversation by making it a referendum on gay marriage. Troll off.

Maybe you are not in the thread you think you are. I suggest you read the title which refers to both the government and its role in gay marriage

Listen. I know your schtick. You like to tweak the noses of fundies. Honestly, I get it. That can be fun. But we're NOT talking about whether gays should be allowed to marry. We're talking about whether government should force others to help them get married.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It should be obviously insane.

Nevertheless, you're right. The government has the power to do whatever we let them get away with.

That's the core principle behind democratic government. The power resides with the People.

Dear NYcarbineer
and it's intellectual honesty that determines how much "the PEOPLE" also INCLUDES the people who don't believe
in your policies that are being railroaded through govt, in violation of the equal rights of these opponents to representation.

If you are only counting the voices and consent of people who AGREE with your beliefs as "the people"
then you are not counting, including or protecting all "people" equally.

You may think majority rule or court ruling is enough to establish a policy,
but when it comes to beliefs and creeds, this isn't up for govt to decide AT ALL.

That is what the argument is about.
Pushing faith-based beliefs on the public through govt
by treating it like it's completely secular and science based,
when it's more like Christians pushing right to life beliefs through govt
that are equally faith based.

If we allow transgender beliefs and policies to be pushed on people,
forcing them to change their beliefs and comply or suffer penalties,
what's to stop right to life Christians from pushing their beliefs
and policies on people, forcing opposition to change their beliefs or suffer penalties.

If we are truly fair and transparent and "intellectually honest"
we will see it is DISCRIMINATORY
to reject right to life policies as faith based and not agree upon,
(and which cause unintended consequences that infringe on equal rights and choice of others)
while FORCING bathroom policies that are faith based and not agreed upon
(and which cause unintended consequence that infringe on the equal rights and choice of others).

Sorry if you cannot see the parallels here, NYcarbineer
When people do not consent to a policy, no means no.
Where policies involve conflicts between people's beliefs that are equal,
decisions cannot be imposed by govt in violation of one or the other,
but policies must be made by consent in order to be fair to all people affected.

People have the right to redress grievances, and this can be
done until a consensus is reached. Using neutral or single stalls
does not require any beliefs to be changed. All this requires is
changing perception toward respecting all beliefs and objections equally under law,
instead of judging and punishing one side's beliefs,
where it is not the job of govt to take sides and endorse one belief while penalizing another.

A person wants service in a store open to the public. The proprietor refuses because the person is of some particular race,creed, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

They both can't win.

It IS the job of government to take sides. The government takes the side of one or the other based on the rule of the laws in place, up to and including the Constitution. The laws that are in place are those put there by the representatives of the People.

That is how government works. It is not that complicated.

It might be how you want government to work, but it's untenable. It makes democracy unworkable. It should never be the job of government to 'take sides'. The job of government should be to act as an impartial referee, to ensure that our interactions are mutually voluntary, and that no one is bullied. It sounds like you want government to pick who gets to do the bullying in any given situation.

Very true...the Government is a referee
They make sure the rules apply equitably to all people

In this case, gays are allowed to marry like everyone else

Correct.

And the rules come from the Constitution and its case law, where the courts ensure those rules are applied equitably to all people when the government as referee makes a bad call.

This is the genius of American Constitutional governance: that the people through their elected representatives determine the extent of government authority, and what limits and restrictions might be placed on citizens’ rights and protected liberties, where it is assumed the people have acted in good faith, and the courts are compelled to show deference to the will of the people.

When the people have acted in bad faith, however, and enact measures repugnant to the Constitution, citizens adversely effected have the right to file suit in Federal court to seek relief, where laws and measures found to be in violation of Constitutional jurisprudence are invalidated by the courts, consistent with the original understanding and intent of the Framers.

 

[dblack]

That's the core principle behind democratic government. The power resides with the People.

Dear NYcarbineer
and it's intellectual honesty that determines how much "the PEOPLE" also INCLUDES the people who don't believe
in your policies that are being railroaded through govt, in violation of the equal rights of these opponents to representation.

If you are only counting the voices and consent of people who AGREE with your beliefs as "the people"
then you are not counting, including or protecting all "people" equally.

You may think majority rule or court ruling is enough to establish a policy,
but when it comes to beliefs and creeds, this isn't up for govt to decide AT ALL.

That is what the argument is about.
Pushing faith-based beliefs on the public through govt
by treating it like it's completely secular and science based,
when it's more like Christians pushing right to life beliefs through govt
that are equally faith based.

If we allow transgender beliefs and policies to be pushed on people,
forcing them to change their beliefs and comply or suffer penalties,
what's to stop right to life Christians from pushing their beliefs
and policies on people, forcing opposition to change their beliefs or suffer penalties.

If we are truly fair and transparent and "intellectually honest"
we will see it is DISCRIMINATORY
to reject right to life policies as faith based and not agree upon,
(and which cause unintended consequences that infringe on equal rights and choice of others)
while FORCING bathroom policies that are faith based and not agreed upon
(and which cause unintended consequence that infringe on the equal rights and choice of others).

Sorry if you cannot see the parallels here, NYcarbineer
When people do not consent to a policy, no means no.
Where policies involve conflicts between people's beliefs that are equal,
decisions cannot be imposed by govt in violation of one or the other,
but policies must be made by consent in order to be fair to all people affected.

People have the right to redress grievances, and this can be
done until a consensus is reached. Using neutral or single stalls
does not require any beliefs to be changed. All this requires is
changing perception toward respecting all beliefs and objections equally under law,
instead of judging and punishing one side's beliefs,
where it is not the job of govt to take sides and endorse one belief while penalizing another.

A person wants service in a store open to the public. The proprietor refuses because the person is of some particular race,creed, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

They both can't win.

It IS the job of government to take sides. The government takes the side of one or the other based on the rule of the laws in place, up to and including the Constitution. The laws that are in place are those put there by the representatives of the People.

That is how government works. It is not that complicated.

It might be how you want government to work, but it's untenable. It makes democracy unworkable. It should never be the job of government to 'take sides'. The job of government should be to act as an impartial referee, to ensure that our interactions are mutually voluntary, and that no one is bullied. It sounds like you want government to pick who gets to do the bullying in any given situation.

Very true...the Government is a referee
They make sure the rules apply equitably to all people

In this case, gays are allowed to marry like everyone else

Correct.

And the rules come from the Constitution and its case law, where the courts ensure those rules are applied equitably to all people when the government as referee makes a bad call.

This is the genius of American Constitutional governance: that the people through their elected representatives determine the extent of government authority, and what limits and restrictions might be placed on citizens’ rights and protected liberties, where it is assumed the people have acted in good faith, and the courts are compelled to show deference to the will of the people.

When the people have acted in bad faith, however, and enact measures repugnant to the Constitution, citizens adversely effected have the right to file suit in Federal court to seek relief, where laws and measures found to be in violation of Constitutional jurisprudence are invalidated by the courts, consistent with the original understanding and intent of the Framers.

True. But off-topic. The question is whether government should force people to support behaviors they don't agree with. This is an entirely different question than whether the behavior should be legal.

 

[rightwinger]

Very true...the Government is a referee
They make sure the rules apply equitably to all people

In this case, gays are allowed to marry like everyone else

That's not what we're discussing. Try to keep up.

Actually, we are discussing the role of government

Try to keep up

Bullshit. You're trying to derail the conversation by making it a referendum on gay marriage. Troll off.

Maybe you are not in the thread you think you are. I suggest you read the title which refers to both the government and its role in gay marriage

Listen. I know your schtick. You like to tweak the noses of fundies. Honestly, I get it. That can be fun. But we're NOT talking about whether gays should be allowed to marry. We're talking about whether government should force others to help them get married.

Its all part of the same pie

Here is how it went down.....
Fundie Christians fought against gay marriage. They bullied government to pass laws against it and change state constitutions. State by state they started to lose. Finally, SCOTUS decided the issue

Did that end it? Of course not
Their next field of battle became...You may allow gays to marry but I'll be damned if I will lift a finger to allow it. Their next tactic became blocking marriage licenses, refusing public venues to hold a wedding, blocking services to gay weddings

Government stepped in and applied public accommodation laws.....as they should have

 

[rightwinger]

Dear NYcarbineer
and it's intellectual honesty that determines how much "the PEOPLE" also INCLUDES the people who don't believe
in your policies that are being railroaded through govt, in violation of the equal rights of these opponents to representation.

If you are only counting the voices and consent of people who AGREE with your beliefs as "the people"
then you are not counting, including or protecting all "people" equally.

You may think majority rule or court ruling is enough to establish a policy,
but when it comes to beliefs and creeds, this isn't up for govt to decide AT ALL.

That is what the argument is about.
Pushing faith-based beliefs on the public through govt
by treating it like it's completely secular and science based,
when it's more like Christians pushing right to life beliefs through govt
that are equally faith based.

If we allow transgender beliefs and policies to be pushed on people,
forcing them to change their beliefs and comply or suffer penalties,
what's to stop right to life Christians from pushing their beliefs
and policies on people, forcing opposition to change their beliefs or suffer penalties.

If we are truly fair and transparent and "intellectually honest"
we will see it is DISCRIMINATORY
to reject right to life policies as faith based and not agree upon,
(and which cause unintended consequences that infringe on equal rights and choice of others)
while FORCING bathroom policies that are faith based and not agreed upon
(and which cause unintended consequence that infringe on the equal rights and choice of others).

Sorry if you cannot see the parallels here, NYcarbineer
When people do not consent to a policy, no means no.
Where policies involve conflicts between people's beliefs that are equal,
decisions cannot be imposed by govt in violation of one or the other,
but policies must be made by consent in order to be fair to all people affected.

People have the right to redress grievances, and this can be
done until a consensus is reached. Using neutral or single stalls
does not require any beliefs to be changed. All this requires is
changing perception toward respecting all beliefs and objections equally under law,
instead of judging and punishing one side's beliefs,
where it is not the job of govt to take sides and endorse one belief while penalizing another.

A person wants service in a store open to the public. The proprietor refuses because the person is of some particular race,creed, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

They both can't win.

It IS the job of government to take sides. The government takes the side of one or the other based on the rule of the laws in place, up to and including the Constitution. The laws that are in place are those put there by the representatives of the People.

That is how government works. It is not that complicated.

It might be how you want government to work, but it's untenable. It makes democracy unworkable. It should never be the job of government to 'take sides'. The job of government should be to act as an impartial referee, to ensure that our interactions are mutually voluntary, and that no one is bullied. It sounds like you want government to pick who gets to do the bullying in any given situation.

Very true...the Government is a referee
They make sure the rules apply equitably to all people

In this case, gays are allowed to marry like everyone else

Correct.

And the rules come from the Constitution and its case law, where the courts ensure those rules are applied equitably to all people when the government as referee makes a bad call.

This is the genius of American Constitutional governance: that the people through their elected representatives determine the extent of government authority, and what limits and restrictions might be placed on citizens’ rights and protected liberties, where it is assumed the people have acted in good faith, and the courts are compelled to show deference to the will of the people.

When the people have acted in bad faith, however, and enact measures repugnant to the Constitution, citizens adversely effected have the right to file suit in Federal court to seek relief, where laws and measures found to be in violation of Constitutional jurisprudence are invalidated by the courts, consistent with the original understanding and intent of the Framers.

True. But off-topic. The question is whether government should force people to support behaviors they don't agree with. This is an entirely different question than whether the behavior should be legal.

Government does not force people...but they force businesses
As a person, you can hate anyone you want...as a business, you can't

 

[dblack]

That's not what we're discussing. Try to keep up.

Actually, we are discussing the role of government

Try to keep up

Bullshit. You're trying to derail the conversation by making it a referendum on gay marriage. Troll off.

Maybe you are not in the thread you think you are. I suggest you read the title which refers to both the government and its role in gay marriage

Listen. I know your schtick. You like to tweak the noses of fundies. Honestly, I get it. That can be fun. But we're NOT talking about whether gays should be allowed to marry. We're talking about whether government should force others to help them get married.

Its all part of the same pie.

Here is how it went down.....
Fundie Christians fought against gay marriage. They bullied government to pass laws against it and change state constitutions. State by state they started to lose. Finally, SCOTUS decided the issue

Did that end it? Of course not
Their next field of battle became...You may allow gays to marry but I'll be damned if I will lift a finger to allow it. Their next tactic became blocking marriage licenses, refusing public venues to hold a wedding, blocking services to gay weddings

Government stepped in and applied public accommodation laws.....as they should have

I understand that's how you see this conversation. For you it's just a pissing match between pro-gay and anti-gay factions. But again, that's not the topic of the thread.

I guess it goes back to the conception of government characterized by NYcarbineer here: Can The Govt FORCE You To Promote A Choice That Goes Against Your Religion? The Fight Continues...

If you conceive of government as a means to give one 'side' power over another, then your pissing-match mentality makes sense. If, on the other hand, government is an impartial referee, it has no business getting involved.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Very true...the Government is a referee
They make sure the rules apply equitably to all people

In this case, gays are allowed to marry like everyone else

That's not what we're discussing. Try to keep up.

Actually, we are discussing the role of government

Try to keep up

Bullshit. You're trying to derail the conversation by making it a referendum on gay marriage. Troll off.

Maybe you are not in the thread you think you are. I suggest you read the title which refers to both the government and its role in gay marriage

Listen. I know your schtick. You like to tweak the noses of fundies. Honestly, I get it. That can be fun. But we're NOT talking about whether gays should be allowed to marry. We're talking about whether government should force others to help them get married.

That’s not what we’re talking about because that doesn’t make any sense.

Government is merely the conduit through which the people express their will.

Government authority manifests through the will of the people, as the consequence of their consent to be subject to that authority, where deference is afforded to the people in that their use of government authority is made in good faith.

In some states the people used government authority in bad faith to disadvantage gay Americans by prohibiting them from entering into marriage contracts they’re eligible to participate in for no other reason than being gay.

Gay Americans filed suit in Federal court to challenge the constitutionality of those measures, arguing that such measures violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment.

In Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) the Supreme Court held that indeed those measures violated the due process rights of gay Americans, that same-sex couples may not be denied access to marriage law for no other reason than being gay.

The Court held that those measures also violated the right of gay Americans to equal protection of (equal access to) marriage law, that the contract law which is marriage can accommodate same-sex couples, and the states are not at liberty to deny gay
Americans the benefit of those contracts because residents of the state have an unwarranted animosity toward fellow residents who are gay.

Consequently, government is not ‘forcing’ anyone to do anything.

Indeed, government was in the wrong with regard to Obergefell, where government was acting outside of its Constitutional authority to prohibit same-sex couples from marrying.

Obergefell is a success for advocates of individual liberty, a success for advocates of limited government, and reaffirmation of the most fundamental tenet of our Constitutional Republic: that citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly, measures denying same-sex couples their right to marry are proof of that.

 

[rightwinger]

Actually, we are discussing the role of government

Try to keep up

Bullshit. You're trying to derail the conversation by making it a referendum on gay marriage. Troll off.

Maybe you are not in the thread you think you are. I suggest you read the title which refers to both the government and its role in gay marriage

Listen. I know your schtick. You like to tweak the noses of fundies. Honestly, I get it. That can be fun. But we're NOT talking about whether gays should be allowed to marry. We're talking about whether government should force others to help them get married.

Its all part of the same pie.

Here is how it went down.....
Fundie Christians fought against gay marriage. They bullied government to pass laws against it and change state constitutions. State by state they started to lose. Finally, SCOTUS decided the issue

Did that end it? Of course not
Their next field of battle became...You may allow gays to marry but I'll be damned if I will lift a finger to allow it. Their next tactic became blocking marriage licenses, refusing public venues to hold a wedding, blocking services to gay weddings

Government stepped in and applied public accommodation laws.....as they should have

I understand that's how you see this conversation. For you it's just a pissing match between pro-gay and anti-gay factions. But again, that's not the topic of the thread.

I guess it goes back to the conception of government characterized by NYcarbineer here: Can The Govt FORCE You To Promote A Choice That Goes Against Your Religion? The Fight Continues...

If you conceive of government as a means to give one 'side' power over another, then your pissing-match mentality makes sense. If, on the other hand, government is an impartial referee, it has no business getting involved.

Who says you get to define the topic of the thread?

Here is the topic
Can The Govt FORCE You To Promote A Choice That Goes Against Your Religion?

The answer is YES they can

One side does not have power over the other. The anti gay forces used to have power by bullying government into accepting their religious views. They no longer do

Gays do not have power except to insist that the Government apply its laws equitably...just like an impartial referee

 

[LeftofLeft]

If your religion prohibits you from adhering to public accommodation laws then you shouldn't have a business.

It's no different than a Muslim applying for a job in a bacon store and then saying he can't touch bacon because of his stupid religion

I completely disagree. The Constitution protects my religious freedom. If you are a LGBT and want some artwork done, your desire for that artwork does not supersede my religious freedom. I do not impose my religious beliefs on you, and you do not try to force me to do something that violates my religious beliefs.

"I reserve the right to NOT provide a service." This actually was once an acceptable sign / practice for businesses, but Liberals seek to impose their will on others, IMO. It isn't just about getting LGBT 'accepted' as a norm, but they are also trying to FORCE others to 'participate in/support it', even if it is against their religious beliefs that are protected UN-CONDITIONALLY under the Constitution.

There are other artists who would gladly take your business. There are other bakeries that would gladly take your business. But that's not good enough. 'THAT' one refuses to do so, so we MUST FORCE them to do so against their will. While 'I' may not want to support your lifestyle / choices due to 'my' religious beliefs 'I' respect your right to be a LGBT and to have rights, 'you' demonstrate 'you' have no respect for 'my' religious beliefs and Constitutional Rights.

'Evil' (as I define in this saying as someone who wants to impose their will on others) teaches 'tolerance' until they are in a position to oppress, silence, and eliminate any opposition to their beliefs."
- We are seeing that today more and more. This oppression of Constitutionally protected rights of religious freedom, to me, is an example of that.

I also believe you and I may disagree on this issue, and that is ok....

Liberals run around screaming that Christians are trying to impose their will on everyone else yet Liberals are the ones who do just that.....impose their will on everyone else in the name of "tolerance". Their minds are twisted as well. Consider this: They shit themselves when a CEO of a fast food restaurant says he is against gay marriages yet scream racism at anyone who does not trust a religion and culture that believes in stoning homosexuals to death.