Colorado tries to find middle ground in the gay rights issue

[martybegan]

Once again, these "Christians" don't exclude other people from their STRAIGHT ONLY bakery who are not Bible-complaint. They don't exclude the Bible's definition of fornicators and adulterers and infidels. This is how you know it has nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with hate and bigotry.

Figure it out!

Not your call to make, and again, unless there is a compelling interest, not the governments.

A person's feelings being hurt is not a compelling interest.

I actually don't like the government forcing someone to make a sandwich at a lunch counter for a black man. But I blame the intransigence of bigots for the expansion of the federal government's power, not their victims.

And you would, too, if you were honest.

And the defenders of these bigots would not be referring to these assholes as Christians if they were honest. This is not a religious issue, and it is extremely dishonest to portray it as such.

Not my call to make, and again, those lunch counter laws were government mandated, and merely the symptom of systemic economic discrimination, not a cause of it.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Once again, these "Christians" don't exclude other people from their STRAIGHT ONLY bakery who are not Bible-complaint. They don't exclude the Bible's definition of fornicators and adulterers and infidels. This is how you know it has nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with hate and bigotry.

Figure it out!

Not your call to make, and again, unless there is a compelling interest, not the governments.

A person's feelings being hurt is not a compelling interest.

Fuck their feelings, can the ******* get gas here or not? if no then we are going come down on you like a ton of bricks, as we should.

Gasoline is a point of service item, and usually is pumped oneself. You can't compare it to a catered event.

The hell I can't. Both are done for dollars, neither are acts of faith, and neither are any fucking business of a bakery. They aren't required to marry the faggots, for that we have an exemption.

 

[martybegan]

Once again, these "Christians" don't exclude other people from their STRAIGHT ONLY bakery who are not Bible-complaint. They don't exclude the Bible's definition of fornicators and adulterers and infidels. This is how you know it has nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with hate and bigotry.

Figure it out!

Not your call to make, and again, unless there is a compelling interest, not the governments.

A person's feelings being hurt is not a compelling interest.

Fuck their feelings, can the ******* get gas here or not? if no then we are going come down on you like a ton of bricks, as we should.

Gasoline is a point of service item, and usually is pumped oneself. You can't compare it to a catered event.

And what, pray tell, was the problem with catering a gay wedding? It is a legal event.

The bakery does not have a religious leg to stand on since they don't exclude ALL non-bible compliant catering events.

Still not your call to make, and not government's call to make.

 

[g5000]

It is very simple. Targeting a specific group for exclusion has absolutely nothing to do with Bible compliance.

Wake. Up.

In your opinion, nothing more, and again, you don't get to make that decision.

No, it is fact. They do not exclude any other people who are not Bible-compliant.

 

[martybegan]

Once again, these "Christians" don't exclude other people from their STRAIGHT ONLY bakery who are not Bible-complaint. They don't exclude the Bible's definition of fornicators and adulterers and infidels. This is how you know it has nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with hate and bigotry.

Figure it out!

Not your call to make, and again, unless there is a compelling interest, not the governments.

A person's feelings being hurt is not a compelling interest.

Fuck their feelings, can the ******* get gas here or not? if no then we are going come down on you like a ton of bricks, as we should.

Gasoline is a point of service item, and usually is pumped oneself. You can't compare it to a catered event.

The hell I can't. Both are done for dollars, neither are acts of faith, and neither are any fucking business of a bakery. They aren't required to marry the faggots, for that we have an exemption.

Still not your call to make. Religious freedom isn't limited to the clergy.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Once again, these "Christians" don't exclude other people from their STRAIGHT ONLY bakery who are not Bible-complaint. They don't exclude the Bible's definition of fornicators and adulterers and infidels. This is how you know it has nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do with hate and bigotry.

Figure it out!

Not your call to make, and again, unless there is a compelling interest, not the governments.

A person's feelings being hurt is not a compelling interest.

Fuck their feelings, can the ******* get gas here or not? if no then we are going come down on you like a ton of bricks, as we should.

Gasoline is a point of service item, and usually is pumped oneself. You can't compare it to a catered event.

And what, pray tell, was the problem with catering a gay wedding? It is a legal event.

The bakery does not have a religious leg to stand on since they don't exclude ALL non-bible compliant catering events.

Still not your call to make, and not government's call to make.

In the real world, it is. Try living in it, for a change.

 

[martybegan]

It is very simple. Targeting a specific group for exclusion has absolutely nothing to do with Bible compliance.

Wake. Up.

In your opinion, nothing more, and again, you don't get to make that decision.

No, it is fact. They do not exclude any other people who are not Bible-compliant.

Not your call to make.

 

[bendog]

I don't suppose it'd be worth noting that the first proposal of "civil only" unions for gays is prohibited by the recent scoutus decision, and is simply a play for attention, or that the protection for gay bakers to discriminate was killed in a committee in a previous year.

Colorado ballot measure seeks to limit gay marriages as civil unions - The Denver Post

Legislative committee kills 2 discrimination bills opposed by gays - The Denver Post

 

[martybegan]

Not your call to make, and again, unless there is a compelling interest, not the governments.

A person's feelings being hurt is not a compelling interest.

Fuck their feelings, can the ******* get gas here or not? if no then we are going come down on you like a ton of bricks, as we should.

Gasoline is a point of service item, and usually is pumped oneself. You can't compare it to a catered event.

And what, pray tell, was the problem with catering a gay wedding? It is a legal event.

The bakery does not have a religious leg to stand on since they don't exclude ALL non-bible compliant catering events.

Still not your call to make, and not government's call to make.

In the real world, it is. Try living in it, for a change.

The only world you want is one where government does your dirty work.

 

[martybegan]

It is very simple. Targeting a specific group for exclusion has absolutely nothing to do with Bible compliance.

Wake. Up.

In your opinion, nothing more, and again, you don't get to make that decision.

No, it is fact. They do not exclude any other people who are not Bible-compliant.

Doesn't matter. Government doesn't go around making sure every Kosher Butcher follows every single tenet of his faith.

 

[Mac1958]

How about just minding your own business and not worrying about who your neighbor is marrying or seeing?

I do, and I agree with gay marriage.

Did you think you "had" me there?

Wanna try again?

.

 

[rightwinger]

Seeking middle ground is what you do before an issue is settled. Not after it's settled, and you've lost.

Conservatives could have had their civil unions ten years ago, but they got greedy by trying to ban all gay relationships

Now that Gays are allowed to marry........Civil union looks pretty good to them

 

[Papageorgio]

This is interesting. Two bills being promoted right now in Colorado:

Gay marriage opponents propose 2 Colorado ballot measures - Washington Times

The first would redefine same-sex marriages as civil unions.

The second would allow wedding-related businesses opposed to gay marriage to hire a contractor to serve same-sex couples.

That sounds like reasonable middle ground. Personally, I don't care how they're defined, but the second one does allow someone to avoid being "forced" to go against their beliefs.

Good enough? Or is compromise still a dirty word?

.

Our business contracts out all the time. It has nothing to do with any but money.

 

[Mac1958]

Not everyone is a closed-minded absolutist. Some choose to find a way to live with those who disagree with them:

Why I Support No Gays Allowed C.J. Prince

"Choose to" being the operative words.

.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Fuck their feelings, can the ******* get gas here or not? if no then we are going come down on you like a ton of bricks, as we should.

Gasoline is a point of service item, and usually is pumped oneself. You can't compare it to a catered event.

And what, pray tell, was the problem with catering a gay wedding? It is a legal event.

The bakery does not have a religious leg to stand on since they don't exclude ALL non-bible compliant catering events.

Still not your call to make, and not government's call to make.

In the real world, it is. Try living in it, for a change.

The only world you want is one where government does your dirty work.

Nope, I want people to STFU and do their goddamned jobs, as well as turn off the damn TV, read a fucking book, make their kids read a fucking book, turn on their heads, have a drink, get laid, lose 20 pounds, and return their goddamned shopping carts, for once.

 

[martybegan]

Gasoline is a point of service item, and usually is pumped oneself. You can't compare it to a catered event.

And what, pray tell, was the problem with catering a gay wedding? It is a legal event.

The bakery does not have a religious leg to stand on since they don't exclude ALL non-bible compliant catering events.

Still not your call to make, and not government's call to make.

In the real world, it is. Try living in it, for a change.

The only world you want is one where government does your dirty work.

Nope, I want people to STFU and do their goddamned jobs, as well as turn off the damn TV, read a fucking book, make their kids read a fucking book, turn on their heads, have a drink, get laid, lose 20 pounds, and return their goddamned shopping carts, for once.

No, you want government to do that for you. Instead of convincing people, which is the right way to do it.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

And what, pray tell, was the problem with catering a gay wedding? It is a legal event.

The bakery does not have a religious leg to stand on since they don't exclude ALL non-bible compliant catering events.

Still not your call to make, and not government's call to make.

In the real world, it is. Try living in it, for a change.

The only world you want is one where government does your dirty work.

Nope, I want people to STFU and do their goddamned jobs, as well as turn off the damn TV, read a fucking book, make their kids read a fucking book, turn on their heads, have a drink, get laid, lose 20 pounds, and return their goddamned shopping carts, for once.

No, you want government to do that for you. Instead of convincing people, which is the right way to do it.

I can do it either way but when it's time to make sure the ******* can by gas, that's not up to the good-will of people who serve *******. You sell gas, you serve *******. it's the law and it works. Don't want to do that, then open the No ******* Club or No ******* Church instead. That's allowed and that's as far as it goes.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Not everyone is a closed-minded absolutist. Some choose to find a way to live with those who disagree with them:

Why I Support No Gays Allowed C.J. Prince

"Choose to" being the operative words.

.

Great on a personal level, bullshit as a matter of law.

 

[PratchettFan]

Christians want to engage in public commerce while also avoiding anti bigotry public accommodations laws??

Where in the constitution does it state you automatically lose your rights when you try to sell something?

It doesn't. That comes from the respective governments, authorized by the Commerce Clause for the feds and the 10th Amendment for the states. Where in the Constitution does it prohibit the feds and states from doing that?

The 1st amendment is incorporated to the States by the 14th, you can't use the 10th to take away rights given by the 1st.

Again, where is the compelling government interest in removing a person's 1st amendment rights in these cases?

You have already agreed they can by bringing up the concept of a compelling interest. So it is a matter of degree, not ability. Currently, I don't think there is a federal requirement preventing a shop owner from serving someone on the basis of sexual orientation. But I think you would be hard pressed to justify refusing to serve someone on the basis of religion for religious purposes. For example, refusing to serve Jews. Sexual orientation is really at the state level, so it becomes a matter of state's rights.

So, is there a compelling interest on the part of the state to prevent discrimination of groups in the market place? You agree there is and I agree with you. How far does that interest go? I think a valid argument can be made that is goes all the way, because any discrimination at all is, by its very nature, destructive to the community. And how does the government determine which services are necessary and which are not, and under what conditions, without massive litigation - which is also destructive to the community?

I expect this to find its way to the SCOTUS. I'll be interested in the outcome.

Actually it doesn't go all the way, because there has to be actual harm involved. The harm in the Jim Crow period was the total economic servitude of blacks due to the laws put in place. The Woolworth counter pictures show the symptoms of this, the counter bans were not the cause.

A single baker, or few bakers saying "I don't want to work gay weddings" does not even come close to what was seen in the Jim Crow era. to compare the two is ridiculous and self serving to those who see government as a method to force change on how people think.

That has yet to be decided. Right now, the states have that authority and there has been no Constitutional finding that they don't. We will have to wait and see.

The counter bans were an example of the problem, and the Courts certainly had no problem at all finding the federal government had the authority to prohibit them.

I will make this prediction though. The people who were hitting the roof over the issue of state's rights in the SSM decision will be demanding the courts over ride state's rights on this issue, and the people who demanded it in this decision will be defending state's rights in the next. Humans are the funniest people.

 

[Mac1958]

Not everyone is a closed-minded absolutist. Some choose to find a way to live with those who disagree with them:

Why I Support No Gays Allowed C.J. Prince

"Choose to" being the operative words.

.

Great on a personal level, bullshit as a matter of law.

They choose to to file the complaint to leverage the law.

They don't have to. They know what they're doing.

.