Colorado tries to find middle ground in the gay rights issue

[G.T.]

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.

One sided?

Christians actually had the LAW on their discriminatory view's side......now that that vile bigotry as mandated by law is over?

GOOD.

So gays are looking for revenge and payback? It seems to me gays have been free to be gays for decades and the sky hasn't fallen. Why all the drama.

There would be zero drama if nobody, as it should be, gave a fuck if gays wanted to marry.

 

[BluesLegend]

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.

Contracting out is perfectly legal.

Sub-contracting is a perfect example of the type of reaction I predict from Christians. If gays continue to try to pick a fight with Christians this is an example of what's going to happen. The left frequently thinks people will just stand there and take it when they attack them, they won't.

 

[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.

why do you need to try to control the way G5000 argues?

Why do you make stuff up, I think we know the answer no need to reply.

 

[daws101]

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 .....

As I predicted there is no middle ground. no tolerance. I personally really don't care I'm just telling you if gays continue to intentionally try to pick fights with Christians that isn't going to end well for them.

funny ,as most all the gays "picking" fight are Christians .
in reality it is the straight Christians who are doing the fight picking.
so it seems to be a straight Christian vs. gay Christian schism.
both of them comprising a tiny fraction of Christianity.
making your threat meaningless.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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 .....

As I predicted there is no middle ground. no tolerance. I personally really don't care I'm just telling you if gays continue to intentionally try to pick fights with Christians that isn't going to end well for them.

Tolerance for intolerance is tolerance perverted.

 

[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?

.

Unnecessary.

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

Contracting out is perfectly legal.

Sub-contracting is a perfect example of the type of reaction I predict from Christians. If gays continue to try to pick a fight with Christians this is an example of what's going to happen. The left frequently thinks people will just stand there and take it when they attack them, they won't.

Perfectly legal as long as the opinion is put in the work order. It is done by businesses all the time. It's legal and who cares if someone calls it middle ground or not.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Consider this payback for the Republican filibuster of a reasonable gun control measure that was supported by 90% of the American people.

Fair enough? Even Steven.

 

[martybegan]

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

They need to obey the law.

A weasel answer from a weasel.

The fundamental principle of laws is weasely now?

Referring only to "the law" and not the reason behind the law is.

Woolworth's was only following "the law" when it had segregated lunch counters. By your argument, those were right, and just and should be followed, because big daddy government knows best.

First I'll ask you to prove that Woolworth's was required by state law to refuse service to blacks.

Then I would like you to prove to me that once it became against federal law to refuse service to blacks, that Woolworth was somehow not obligated to obey that law.

That's two tasks for you.

Well here is Alabama's law as an example:

Examples of Jim Crow laws - October 1960 - Civil Rights - A Jackson Sun Special Report

It shall be unlawful to conduct a restaurant or other place for the serving of food in the city, at which white and colored people are served in the same room, unless such white and colored persons are effectually separated by a solid partition extending from the floor upward to a distance of seven feet or higher, and unless a separate entrance from the street is provided for each compartment. Alabama

and woolworth is covered because it was clearly defined as a PA, as seen below. I don't see bakers providing a contracted service are covered.

Establishments affecting interstate commerce or supported in their activities by State action as places of public accommodation; lodgings; facilities principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises; gasoline stations; places of exhibition or entertainment; other covered establishments
Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this subchapter if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
(4) any establishment
(A)
(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or
(ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and
(B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.

42 U.S. Code 2000a - Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation US Law LII Legal Information Institute

 

[BluesLegend]

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.

One sided?

Christians actually had the LAW on their discriminatory view's side......now that that vile bigotry as mandated by law is over?

GOOD.

So gays are looking for revenge and payback? It seems to me gays have been free to be gays for decades and the sky hasn't fallen. Why all the drama.

There would be zero drama if nobody, as it should be, gave a fuck if gays wanted to marry.

Meh, I don't care if they get married. That government is conspiring with militant gays to target a Christian business and trying to intentionally destroy that business and the owners hell yes I have a problem with that.

 

[daws101]

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.

why do you need to try to control the way G5000 argues?

Why do you make stuff up, I think we know the answer no need to reply.

wow great denial
this is you:' Why do you have to point to blacks and their civil rights struggle, can't you make the argument for gays on its own."
I did not make that up.
you've just proved my point: " do you need to try to control the way (place poster name here). argues!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just to be clear, this is not 'Colorado' seeking middle ground. This is one accountant and one lawyer filing the paperwork for 2 ballot initiatives.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

One sided?

Christians actually had the LAW on their discriminatory view's side......now that that vile bigotry as mandated by law is over?

GOOD.

So gays are looking for revenge and payback? It seems to me gays have been free to be gays for decades and the sky hasn't fallen. Why all the drama.

There would be zero drama if nobody, as it should be, gave a fuck if gays wanted to marry.

Meh, I don't care if they get married. That government is conspiring with militant gays to target a Christian business and trying to intentionally destroy that business and the owners hell yes I have a problem with that.

Can you list the things that you believe a so-called Christian business should NOT be allowed to do in the name of their religion,

regarding business practices?

 

[BluesLegend]

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.

Contracting out is perfectly legal.

Sub-contracting is a perfect example of the type of reaction I predict from Christians. If gays continue to try to pick a fight with Christians this is an example of what's going to happen. The left frequently thinks people will just stand there and take it when they attack them, they won't.

Perfectly legal as long as the opinion is put in the work order. It is done by businesses all the time. It's legal and who cares if someone calls it middle ground or not.

That will piss off gays imo. Which gets us to the root of the issue, do they really just want a cake or do they want to pick a fight with a Christian.

 

[Mac1958]

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.

Contracting out is perfectly legal.

Sub-contracting is a perfect example of the type of reaction I predict from Christians. If gays continue to try to pick a fight with Christians this is an example of what's going to happen. The left frequently thinks people will just stand there and take it when they attack them, they won't.

Perfectly legal as long as the opinion is put in the work order. It is done by businesses all the time. It's legal and who cares if someone calls it middle ground or not.

That will piss off gays imo. Which gets us to the root of the issue, do they really just want a cake or do they want to pick a fight with a Christian.

If this were about a cake, they would patronize someone who wanted to make it for them.

So, it ain't about a cake.

.

 

[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")

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.

as always you are talking out your ass ...it bitch slapped you so hard it knocked your last real tooth out!

I consider your non-answer to show you have nothing real to add, and no response to my position.

you have no position.

Wrong. I have explained it several times, so either 1) you can't understand it or 2) you don't want to understand it.

Either way, its not the "hate teh gays" response you are used to, so you can't handle it, and resort to ignoring it.

putting lip stick on that pig doesn't cover your bias.
btw I understand your bullshit with crystal clarity.

 

[NYcarbineer]

They need to obey the law.

A weasel answer from a weasel.

The fundamental principle of laws is weasely now?

Referring only to "the law" and not the reason behind the law is.

Woolworth's was only following "the law" when it had segregated lunch counters. By your argument, those were right, and just and should be followed, because big daddy government knows best.

First I'll ask you to prove that Woolworth's was required by state law to refuse service to blacks.

Then I would like you to prove to me that once it became against federal law to refuse service to blacks, that Woolworth was somehow not obligated to obey that law.

That's two tasks for you.

Well here is Alabama's law as an example:

Examples of Jim Crow laws - October 1960 - Civil Rights - A Jackson Sun Special Report

It shall be unlawful to conduct a restaurant or other place for the serving of food in the city, at which white and colored people are served in the same room, unless such white and colored persons are effectually separated by a solid partition extending from the floor upward to a distance of seven feet or higher, and unless a separate entrance from the street is provided for each compartment. Alabama

and woolworth is covered because it was clearly defined as a PA, as seen below. I don't see bakers providing a contracted service are covered.

Establishments affecting interstate commerce or supported in their activities by State action as places of public accommodation; lodgings; facilities principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises; gasoline stations; places of exhibition or entertainment; other covered establishments
Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this subchapter if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
(4) any establishment
(A)
(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or
(ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and
(B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.

42 U.S. Code 2000a - Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation US Law LII Legal Information Institute

And once federal law had rendered that state statue unenforceable, then what was Woolworth's legal obligation?

 

[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.

why do you need to try to control the way G5000 argues?

Why do you make stuff up, I think we know the answer no need to reply.

wow great denial
this is you:' Why do you have to point to blacks and their civil rights struggle, can't you make the argument for gays on its own."
I did not make that up.
you've just proved my point: " do you need to try to control the way (place poster name here). argues!

I asked a question you tard, go back to school maybe you will advance past the 8th grade this time.

 

[Ravi]

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

Someone smart should propose a bill to redefine interracial marriages as civil unions.

Make the point this is the same bullshit, different decade.


Bigots don't get to tell other people what their marriage is.

Yeah, what is up with that? SCOTUS just ruled that gay marriage can be allowed, why is Colorado trying to go backward.

 

[Ravi]

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.

You cannot legislate civil rights. Why do you not understand that basic concept?

 

[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.

One sided?

Christians actually had the LAW on their discriminatory view's side......now that that vile bigotry as mandated by law is over?

GOOD.

So gays are looking for revenge and payback? It seems to me gays have been free to be gays for decades and the sky hasn't fallen. Why all the drama.

There would be zero drama if nobody, as it should be, gave a fuck if gays wanted to marry.

Meh, I don't care if they get married. That government is conspiring with militant gays to target a Christian business and trying to intentionally destroy that business and the owners hell yes I have a problem with that.

Can you list the things that you believe a so-called Christian business should NOT be allowed to do in the name of their religion,

regarding business practices?

Pull your head out of your ass. A reasonable fine or damage award for not baking a cake might be $1,000. That has some sting to it and seems appropriate. $135,000 damage award for not making a cake is utterly ridiculous.