Colorado tries to find middle ground in the gay rights issue

[hazlnut]

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?

.

Unnecessary.

If you want to run a business in public, then follow the civil rights act.

 

[G.T.]

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.

.

The business CHOOSES to break the law. They dont have to.

 

[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.

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

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

.

They knew the law, unlike Melissa who didn't follow it. You want people to obey the law, right Mac?

And shouldn't illegal actions have consequences?

 

[martybegan]

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.

.

The business CHOOSES to break the law. They dont have to.

MLK CHOSE to break the law, he didn't have to.
Rosa Parks CHOSE to break the law, she didn't have to.

 

[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.

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

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

.

The business CHOOSES to break the law. They dont have to.

MLK CHOSE to break the law, he didn't have to.
Rosa Parks CHOSE to break the law, she didn't have to.

And they both faced up to the consequences, they didn't try to say they were exempt because of religion.

 

[G.T.]

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.

.

The business CHOOSES to break the law. They dont have to.

MLK CHOSE to break the law, he didn't have to.
Rosa Parks CHOSE to break the law, she didn't have to.

And they both faced up to the consequences, they didn't try to say they were exempt because of religion.

Exactly

 

[martybegan]

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.

Again, gas stations and wedding cakes are two different things. If you refuse to sell gas to a person who's tank is empty there is an actual harm.

 

[Syriusly]

These are ballot measures filed by two people.

"it seems' because they are the ones getting the press.

Others have used the laws over time and for the same purpose- pretty common for handicapped to use the law.

Justice Department Settles Disability Discrimination Case Involving Disabled Veteran in Utah

WASHINGTON - The Justice Department today announced a $20,000 consent decree that resolves a lawsuit alleging that a Park City, Utah, condominium association and its management company violated the Fair Housing Act by refusing to grant a resident’s request for a reasonable accommodation.


The lawsuit, filed on Nov. 21, 2011, in U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, alleges that the Fox Point at Redstone Association, Property Management Systems and on-site property manager Derek Peterson refused to grant a reasonable accommodation so that Thomas Burton, a disabled combat veteran of the first Gulf War, could keep a small dog in the condominium he rented to help him cope with the effects of depression and anxiety disorder. The lawsuit further alleges that the defendants refused to waive their pet fees and insurance requirements and issued multiple fines that eventually led to the non-renewal of Burton’s lease.


Under the consent decree, which was entered by the U.S. District Court in Utah, the defendants will pay $20,000 in monetary relief to Burton. Additionally, the defendants will attend fair housing training; implement a new reasonable accommodation policy that does not charge pet fees to owners of service or assistance animals and does not require them to purchase liability insurance; and comply with notice, monitoring and reporting requirements.

That's the best you can do? Really? A condo Associations fight over dogs?

You agree of course that the condo association had the right to discriminate against the disabled veteran?

if you wanted an example of the tyranny of petty authority, you picked a perfect one with regards to condo associations.

And they were discriminating against the dog, which I'm not sure is even discrimination.

No- they violated the disabled Veterans legal rights by refusing to accommodate his dog.

You agree of course with the condo association?

if they applied the fee to everyone who wanted a dog, I don't see how they got hit on PA. If anything it was an ADA violation.

It's discrimination against pet owners, who I am not sure are a protected class (yet).

I disagree with the Condo association on making fees for dogs, but to me they have the right to do it.

And the difference between PA laws and ADA laws are?

 

[martybegan]

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.

.

The business CHOOSES to break the law. They dont have to.

MLK CHOSE to break the law, he didn't have to.
Rosa Parks CHOSE to break the law, she didn't have to.

And they both faced up to the consequences, they didn't try to say they were exempt because of religion.

So that makes the laws they broke right?

 

[martybegan]

These are ballot measures filed by two people.

That's the best you can do? Really? A condo Associations fight over dogs?

You agree of course that the condo association had the right to discriminate against the disabled veteran?

if you wanted an example of the tyranny of petty authority, you picked a perfect one with regards to condo associations.

And they were discriminating against the dog, which I'm not sure is even discrimination.

No- they violated the disabled Veterans legal rights by refusing to accommodate his dog.

You agree of course with the condo association?

if they applied the fee to everyone who wanted a dog, I don't see how they got hit on PA. If anything it was an ADA violation.

It's discrimination against pet owners, who I am not sure are a protected class (yet).

I disagree with the Condo association on making fees for dogs, but to me they have the right to do it.

And the difference between PA laws and ADA laws are?

They come from different laws passed at different times?

 

[hipeter924]

COLORADO HOMO: Yes, I'd like a wedding cake, please.

COLORADO BIGOT: I contracted all AIDS-related business out, faggot. To a guy in Kansas. And his rates are three times higher.

Meh. I am more apathetic than most, as in if I get married - I don't have that great an interest in wedding cake and weddings at all really.

Far more likely to get married quickly, then elope, as for the price of most weddings these days you could go on holiday.

 

[BluesLegend]

Gays want the legal right to intentionally target Christians and sue them so no there's no middle ground.

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?

Where is there a right to infringe on a consumer's liberty to engage in commerce..

Also, where does it state that the government, through the commerce clause, cannot create a law diminishing one's ability to discriminate in such ways that deny another their liberty?

You clowns try to pretend gays are looking for common ground with Christians, its laughable. The militant gays are intentionally targeting Christians intending from the start to rub their noses in this, entrap them, leap on them like a pack of wild dogs with law suits, boycotts, and harassment which is exactly what they did to this couple. Its completely one sided with intent to harm and the SCOTUS has opened up a whole can-o-worms that will clog the courts.

Gays have plenty of common ground with the Christians who aren't anti-gay bigots.

And those Christians who have religious conflicts or otherwise disagree with the gay community?

 

[daws101]

looks to me like our residents homophobes are in the third stage of grief!
ANGER & BARGAINING-
Frustration gives way to anger, and you may lash out and lay unwarranted blame for the death on someone else. Please try to control this, as permanent damage to your relationships may result. This is a time for the release of bottled up emotion.

You may rail against fate, questioning "Why me?" You may also try to bargain in vain with the powers that be for a way out of your despair ("I will never drink again if you just bring him back")

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

Where is there a right to infringe on a consumer's liberty to engage in commerce..

Also, where does it state that the government, through the commerce clause, cannot create a law diminishing one's ability to discriminate in such ways that deny another their liberty?

You clowns try to pretend gays are looking for common ground with Christians, its laughable. The militant gays are intentionally targeting Christians intending from the start to rub their noses in this, entrap them, leap on them like a pack of wild dogs with law suits, boycotts, and harassment which is exactly what they did to this couple. Its completely one sided with intent to harm and the SCOTUS has opened up a whole can-o-worms that will clog the courts.

Gays have plenty of common ground with the Christians who aren't anti-gay bigots.

And those Christians who have religious conflicts or otherwise disagree with the gay community?

They need to obey the law.

 

[daws101]

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?

Where is there a right to infringe on a consumer's liberty to engage in commerce..

Also, where does it state that the government, through the commerce clause, cannot create a law diminishing one's ability to discriminate in such ways that deny another their liberty?

You clowns try to pretend gays are looking for common ground with Christians, its laughable. The militant gays are intentionally targeting Christians intending from the start to rub their noses in this, entrap them, leap on them like a pack of wild dogs with law suits, boycotts, and harassment which is exactly what they did to this couple. Its completely one sided with intent to harm and the SCOTUS has opened up a whole can-o-worms that will clog the courts.

Gays have plenty of common ground with the Christians who aren't anti-gay bigots.

And those Christians who have religious conflicts or otherwise disagree with the gay community?

time to grow up .....

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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.

.

The business CHOOSES to break the law. They dont have to.

MLK CHOSE to break the law, he didn't have to.
Rosa Parks CHOSE to break the law, she didn't have to.

And they both faced up to the consequences, they didn't try to say they were exempt because of religion.

So that makes the laws they broke right?

No, it makes it the law, fair or not. Break it and get nailed, so don't whine like a child about it or claim your religion makes the laws of this nation invalid. That you can test in court, if you are willing to lose everything in the process potentially.

 

[martybegan]

looks to me like our residents homophobes are in the third stage of grief!
ANGER & BARGAINING-
Frustration gives way to anger, and you may lash out and lay unwarranted blame for the death on someone else. Please try to control this, as permanent damage to your relationships may result. This is a time for the release of bottled up emotion.

You may rail against fate, questioning "Why me?" You may also try to bargain in vain with the powers that be for a way out of your despair ("I will never drink again if you just bring him back")

Considering I have no issue with SSM if it was voted in by the State legislatures, your broad brush doesn't hit me.

Try again.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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

Where is there a right to infringe on a consumer's liberty to engage in commerce..

Also, where does it state that the government, through the commerce clause, cannot create a law diminishing one's ability to discriminate in such ways that deny another their liberty?

You clowns try to pretend gays are looking for common ground with Christians, its laughable. The militant gays are intentionally targeting Christians intending from the start to rub their noses in this, entrap them, leap on them like a pack of wild dogs with law suits, boycotts, and harassment which is exactly what they did to this couple. Its completely one sided with intent to harm and the SCOTUS has opened up a whole can-o-worms that will clog the courts.

Gays have plenty of common ground with the Christians who aren't anti-gay bigots.

And those Christians who have religious conflicts or otherwise disagree with the gay community?

time to grow up .....

^^^^ that.

 

[BluesLegend]

You clowns try to pretend gays are looking for common ground with Christians, its laughable. The militant gays are intentionally targeting Christians intending from the start to rub their noses in this, entrap them, leap on them like a pack of wild dogs with law suits, boycotts, and harassment which is exactly what they did to this couple. Its completely one sided with intent to harm and the SCOTUS has opened up a whole can-o-worms that will clog the courts.

Kind of like the way blacks went after all the racists when they gained their civil rights.

Perfectly understandable, and the racists had it coming to them.

Why do you have to point to blacks and their civil rights struggle, can't you make the argument for gays on its own? Many blacks will tell you they resent gays trying to equate the gay rights struggle with the black civil rights struggle they find that offensive.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Incidentally, Jesus Christ was much clearer on the issue of divorce than he was on even mentioning same sex marriage.

Where are the Christian businesses who refuse to do business with people who've been divorced?