Discrimination and the New Inclusive America: Bake me a cake or go to Jail!

[Conservative65]

If you're a Christian..commit sacrilege and renounce your faith..or go to jail.

That's not really the way it is, but if that's what you have to tell yourself so you know to obey the law, I don't have a problem with it.

It's Christians you can have whatever belief you want but you can't practice it if some faggot gets offended by it.

Right right. Supporters of slavery, segregation, and interracial marriage bans all invoked the religious defense too. Just substitute your pejorative.

If you're a Christian..commit sacrilege and renounce your faith..or go to jail.

That's not really the way it is, but if that's what you have to tell yourself so you know to obey the law, I don't have a problem with it.

It's Christians you can have whatever belief you want but you can't practice it if some faggot gets offended by it.

Right right. Supporters of slavery, segregation, and interracial marriage bans all invoked the religious defense too. Just substitute your pejorative.

Supporter of same sex marriage involve a religious defense claiming that God doesn't really mean what he says about homosexuality and that Jesus never opposed same sex marraige (although he did).

There is no God and the states should make no laws based upon what someone says it said. I would support my daughter if she decides to have a "Heathen Wedding".

Good. You and your daughter can burn in Hell.

 

[BlindBoo]

That's not really the way it is, but if that's what you have to tell yourself so you know to obey the law, I don't have a problem with it.

It's Christians you can have whatever belief you want but you can't practice it if some faggot gets offended by it.

Right right. Supporters of slavery, segregation, and interracial marriage bans all invoked the religious defense too. Just substitute your pejorative.

That's not really the way it is, but if that's what you have to tell yourself so you know to obey the law, I don't have a problem with it.

It's Christians you can have whatever belief you want but you can't practice it if some faggot gets offended by it.

Right right. Supporters of slavery, segregation, and interracial marriage bans all invoked the religious defense too. Just substitute your pejorative.

Supporter of same sex marriage involve a religious defense claiming that God doesn't really mean what he says about homosexuality and that Jesus never opposed same sex marraige (although he did).

There is no God and the states should make no laws based upon what someone says it said. I would support my daughter if she decides to have a "Heathen Wedding".

Good. You and your daughter can burn in Hell.

There is no Hell either. No lesser Gods or any other mythical creatures that inhabit your alternative Universe. But do continue with your

 

[Conservative65]

It's Christians you can have whatever belief you want but you can't practice it if some faggot gets offended by it.

Right right. Supporters of slavery, segregation, and interracial marriage bans all invoked the religious defense too. Just substitute your pejorative.

It's Christians you can have whatever belief you want but you can't practice it if some faggot gets offended by it.

Right right. Supporters of slavery, segregation, and interracial marriage bans all invoked the religious defense too. Just substitute your pejorative.

Supporter of same sex marriage involve a religious defense claiming that God doesn't really mean what he says about homosexuality and that Jesus never opposed same sex marraige (although he did).

There is no God and the states should make no laws based upon what someone says it said. I would support my daughter if she decides to have a "Heathen Wedding".

Good. You and your daughter can burn in Hell.

There is no Hell either. No lesser Gods or any other mythical creatures that inhabit your alternative Universe. But do continue with your

If you think so, better hope you are right and for the sake of your daughter, the same.

 

[orogenicman]

Emily is going with her feelings, not the law.

????

Dear JakeStarkey can you explain why INCLUDING both sides of religious debates EQUALLY
when making a law that affects BOTH their beliefs is NOT OBJECTIVE?

Let me answer that, if I may.

Because the Constitution prohibits the government from making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, or impeding the free exercise of religion.

Dear orogenicman
I agree! That's what I am SAYING!
by taking one side's beliefs over the other, the govt is establishing a bias based on beliefs that not all the public shares.
EXACTLY!

Excuse me, but being gay is not a belief any more than having Down's syndrome is a belief. The bias is in believing that one has a right to justify discrimination based on one's religion.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"Excuse me, but being gay is not a belief any more than having Down's syndrome is a belief [or believing the ACA is wrong permits one to opt out]. The bias is in believing that one has a right to justify discrimination based on one's religion."

 

[emilynghiem]

It's Christians you can have whatever belief you want but you can't practice it if some faggot gets offended by it.

Right right. Supporters of slavery, segregation, and interracial marriage bans all invoked the religious defense too. Just substitute your pejorative.

It's Christians you can have whatever belief you want but you can't practice it if some faggot gets offended by it.

Right right. Supporters of slavery, segregation, and interracial marriage bans all invoked the religious defense too. Just substitute your pejorative.

Supporter of same sex marriage involve a religious defense claiming that God doesn't really mean what he says about homosexuality and that Jesus never opposed same sex marraige (although he did).

There is no God and the states should make no laws based upon what someone says it said. I would support my daughter if she decides to have a "Heathen Wedding".

Good. You and your daughter can burn in Hell.

There is no Hell either. No lesser Gods or any other mythical creatures that inhabit your alternative Universe. But do continue with your

BlindBoo just like God is whatever you define God to mean
(Life, Nature, Love, Wisdom, Truth, Good Will, Benevolence)

Hell is whatever you define it to be:
Human suffering, War,
addiction to drugs that leads to suicide,

if you take all the unforgiven conflicts that repeat, project or escalate,
Collectively that's the same as Hell.

BlindBoo if you asked around, you'd find as many people who have
experienced Heaven on earth, as Hell on earth.

Just because you and others don't call it the same terms, doesn't meant this isn't real to people on many levels.

Any suffering caused by unforgiven confict or fear leads down the path of hell.

Yes, it can be overcome and eliminated, but that doesn't mean it isn't real!

 

[Jarhead]

Emily is going with her feelings, not the law.

????

Dear JakeStarkey can you explain why INCLUDING both sides of religious debates EQUALLY
when making a law that affects BOTH their beliefs is NOT OBJECTIVE?

Let me answer that, if I may.

Because the Constitution prohibits the government from making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, or impeding the free exercise of religion.

Dear orogenicman
I agree! That's what I am SAYING!
by taking one side's beliefs over the other, the govt is establishing a bias based on beliefs that not all the public shares.
EXACTLY!

Excuse me, but being gay is not a belief any more than having Down's syndrome is a belief. The bias is in believing that one has a right to justify discrimination based on one's religion.

as a supporter of gay marriage I feel the need to counter your argument by saying the bias can ALSO be not allowing the freedom of belief by those that are guided by their religious faith.

 

[emilynghiem]

"Excuse me, but being gay is not a belief any more than having Down's syndrome is a belief [or believing the ACA is wrong permits one to opt out]. The bias is in believing that one has a right to justify discrimination based on one's religion."

JakeStarkey and orogenicman
1. I'm comparing BELIEFS about homosexuality and marriage.

Nobody is banning homosexuality, the issue is BELIEFS about either gay marriage,
traditional marriage, or BELIEF if homosexuality is a choice of behavior and not a physically born condition.

Where people are equal is that we have BELIEFS that are equally defensible as protected by laws from discrimination.

If the govt respects all BELIEFS equally, we wouldn't be having these fights in the public realm.
These issues and conflicts over BELIEFS would be settled in private where people retain equal and free choice.
These do not belong in govt because they involve FAITH based BELIEFS either for or against homosexuality
or gay marriage as being natural or unnatural and either in violation or not with this person or that person's beliefs, etc.

Govt is not supposed to serve as a referee much less a deciding voice in matters of BELIEFS.

2. so if these conflicting beliefs weren't being PUSHED on one party or another,
then we wouldn't HAVE discrimination suits or conflicts going back and forth.

This is like trying to blame and restrict gun rights laws after someone goes out and abuses
guns to commit crimes -- that shouldn't be abused as an excuse to deprive and threaten ALL citizens who bear arms, just because some people get abusive with them.

These mandates go too far, on both sides, because they both feel threatened.

3. As for ACA, JakeStarkey it's NOT based on beliefs whether the content of the mandates are right or wrong, but that people should have a CHOICE since health care involves personal choices of health and finance that weren't expressly authorized to mandate or regulate through federal govt.

 

[orogenicman]

Emily is going with her feelings, not the law.

????

Dear JakeStarkey can you explain why INCLUDING both sides of religious debates EQUALLY
when making a law that affects BOTH their beliefs is NOT OBJECTIVE?

Let me answer that, if I may.

Because the Constitution prohibits the government from making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, or impeding the free exercise of religion.

Dear orogenicman
I agree! That's what I am SAYING!
by taking one side's beliefs over the other, the govt is establishing a bias based on beliefs that not all the public shares.
EXACTLY!

Excuse me, but being gay is not a belief any more than having Down's syndrome is a belief. The bias is in believing that one has a right to justify discrimination based on one's religion.

as a supporter of gay marriage I feel the need to counter your argument by saying the bias can ALSO be not allowing the freedom of belief by those that are guided by their religious faith.

Not so. You can believe whatever your heart desires as long as it doesn't adversely affect other believing or non-believing human beings. For instance, you can no longer require African Americans to use separate bathrooms and water fountains in ANY business in the country, EVEN if you claim to do it based on some religious belief. Using the Bible to justify discrimination against gays is the same heinous use of it that slave owners used to justify slavery, and just as morally and ethically ambiguous.

 

[orogenicman]

"Excuse me, but being gay is not a belief any more than having Down's syndrome is a belief [or believing the ACA is wrong permits one to opt out]. The bias is in believing that one has a right to justify discrimination based on one's religion."

JakeStarkey and orogenicman
I'm comparing BELIEFS about homosexuality.

Nobody is banning homosexuality, the issue is BELIEFS about either gay marriage,
traditional marriage, or BELIEF if homosexuality is a choice of behavior and not a physically born condition.

Where people are equal is that we have BELIEFS that are equally defensible as protected by laws from discrimination.

If the govt respects all BELIEFS equally, we wouldn't be having these fights in the public realm.
These issues and conflicts over BELIEFS would be settled in private where people retain equal and free choice.
These do not belong in govt because they involve FAITH based BELIEFS either for or against homosexuality
or gay marriage as being natural or unnatural and either in violation or not with this person or that person's beliefs, etc.

Govt is not supposed to serve as a referee much less a deciding voice in matters of BELIEFS.

The government isn't required to respect beliefs. It is prohibited from the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, or impeding the free exercise of religion. That last part has been used to justify actions discriminating against people for all sorts of reasons, not just the discrimination against gays. And many attempts have been made to try to bypass the first part. Passing a law that allows one to discriminate against people based on a religious belief is an attempt to use the law to establish a religious tenant.

Moreover, the 14th amendment makes it very clear that no one can be denied equal protection under the law. That includes the LGBT.

 

[emilynghiem]

NOPE

????

Dear JakeStarkey can you explain why INCLUDING both sides of religious debates EQUALLY
when making a law that affects BOTH their beliefs is NOT OBJECTIVE?

Let me answer that, if I may.

Because the Constitution prohibits the government from making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, or impeding the free exercise of religion.

Dear orogenicman
I agree! That's what I am SAYING!
by taking one side's beliefs over the other, the govt is establishing a bias based on beliefs that not all the public shares.
EXACTLY!

Excuse me, but being gay is not a belief any more than having Down's syndrome is a belief. The bias is in believing that one has a right to justify discrimination based on one's religion.

as a supporter of gay marriage I feel the need to counter your argument by saying the bias can ALSO be not allowing the freedom of belief by those that are guided by their religious faith.

Not so. You can believe whatever your heart desires as long as it doesn't adversely affect other believing or non-believing human beings. For instance, you can no longer require African Americans to use separate bathrooms and water fountains in ANY business in the country, EVEN if you claim to do it based on some religious belief. Using the Bible to justify discrimination against gays is the same heinous use of it that slave owners used to justify slavery, and just as morally and ethically ambiguous.

NOPE orogenicman you are making the false assumption that race and orientation are on the same level.

Race is genetically proven to be determined at conception and birth.
Orientation has been known to CHANGE, after people have gone through a Spiritual process of coming out or healing.
Nobody I know has spiritually changed their physical race after spiritual healing.
These are not on the same level.

Race can be scientifically proven -- even the bone marrow registries make a vital distinction between races in order to save lives, this is critical in order to find genetically compatible or close enough matches.

Orientation and beliefs about it are faith based.

You'd be right to say that such beliefs cannot be discriminated against,
and on that token, that's why beliefs on both sides can't be decided for people by govt.

Even Obama decided by his own free will to change his mind about gay marriage.
Why deprive other people of the free will to choose? similar to how prolife people CHOOSE to oppose abortion.

This makes no sense to ban things that offend you, while refusing to ban things as harmful and risky as abortion,
just because of political biases -- how is that not discrimination by creed?

What is more dangerous and worth banning -- abortion?
or refusing on religious grounds to deliver a cake or take photos at a gay wedding?

Why protect the free choice of abortion, which has much greater risk and potential of causing long lasting if not irreversible damage and harm to health, while forcing the public to accept gay marriage against their beliefs?

The prolife lobbies get stopped for pushing anti-abortion BELIEFS that would protection millions of lives each year.
How many gay couples are DYING
from not getting their cake baked by a Christian baker when there are many others to choose from?

Do you see how ridiculously BIASED this is?

 

[BlindBoo]

Right right. Supporters of slavery, segregation, and interracial marriage bans all invoked the religious defense too. Just substitute your pejorative.

Right right. Supporters of slavery, segregation, and interracial marriage bans all invoked the religious defense too. Just substitute your pejorative.

Supporter of same sex marriage involve a religious defense claiming that God doesn't really mean what he says about homosexuality and that Jesus never opposed same sex marraige (although he did).

There is no God and the states should make no laws based upon what someone says it said. I would support my daughter if she decides to have a "Heathen Wedding".

Good. You and your daughter can burn in Hell.

There is no Hell either. No lesser Gods or any other mythical creatures that inhabit your alternative Universe. But do continue with your

BlindBoo just like God is whatever you define God to mean
(Life, Nature, Love, Wisdom, Truth, Good Will, Benevolence)

Hell is whatever you define it to be:
Human suffering, War,
addiction to drugs that leads to suicide,

if you take all the unforgiven conflicts that repeat, project or escalate,
Collectively that's the same as Hell.

BlindBoo if you asked around, you'd find as many people who have
experienced Heaven on earth, as Hell on earth.

Just because you and others don't call it the same terms, doesn't meant this isn't real to people on many levels.

Any suffering caused by unforgiven confict or fear leads down the path of hell.

Yes, it can be overcome and eliminated, but that doesn't mean it isn't real!

Okay let say I can accept that. In fact, I might experience my own personal hell from some unresolved conflicts in my life if I don't resolve them, but loving my beautiful daughter for who she is, is not one of them. To proclaim that she and I should burn in Hell is just funny, and not in a haha way.

 

[JakeStarkey]

NOPE

Yes. The bias of the far right social cons cannot be used to detract from the liberty of others in public commerce when the goods and services are offered to every one else.

This is not a democratic theocracy like Iran.

This is a secular republic where the final opinion is invested in the SCOTUS.

You can believe whatever you want, but you cannot do whatever you want in public and sometimes not even in private.

 

[orogenicman]

NOPE

Let me answer that, if I may.

Because the Constitution prohibits the government from making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, or impeding the free exercise of religion.

Dear orogenicman
I agree! That's what I am SAYING!
by taking one side's beliefs over the other, the govt is establishing a bias based on beliefs that not all the public shares.
EXACTLY!

Excuse me, but being gay is not a belief any more than having Down's syndrome is a belief. The bias is in believing that one has a right to justify discrimination based on one's religion.

as a supporter of gay marriage I feel the need to counter your argument by saying the bias can ALSO be not allowing the freedom of belief by those that are guided by their religious faith.

Not so. You can believe whatever your heart desires as long as it doesn't adversely affect other believing or non-believing human beings. For instance, you can no longer require African Americans to use separate bathrooms and water fountains in ANY business in the country, EVEN if you claim to do it based on some religious belief. Using the Bible to justify discrimination against gays is the same heinous use of it that slave owners used to justify slavery, and just as morally and ethically ambiguous.

NOPE orogenicman you are making the false assumption that race and orientation are on the same level.

Race is genetically proven to be determined at conception and birth.
Orientation has been known to CHANGE, after people have gone through a Spiritual process of coming out or healing.

That is blatantly and demonstrably false:

Therapists who say homosexuality can be cured are committing consumer fraud N.J. judge says NJ.com

People who provide gay-to-straight conversion therapy are committing fraud if they describe homosexuality as a mental disorder that can be cured, a state judge said Tuesday in a ruling a civil rights group predicted would deal a serious blow to the treatment's future across the nation.

The decision by Superior Court Judge Peter F. Bariso Jr., sitting in Hudson County, gives an edge to the four men and two parents suing Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing or JONAH, accusing the Jersey City organization that promotes the treatment of violating New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

The decision is bound to have a far-reaching impact, said David Dinielli, deputy legal director for the Southern Poverty Law Center which brought the lawsuit.

"This ruling is monumental and devastating to the conversion therapy industry," Dinelli said. "For the first time, a court has ruled that it is fraudulent as a matter of law for conversion therapists to tell clients that they have a mental disorder that can be cured. This is the principal lie the conversion therapy industry uses throughout the country to peddle its quackery to vulnerable clients."

In his Tuesday ruling Bariso said: "It is a misrepresentation in violation of the Consumer Fraud Act, in advertising or selling conversion therapy services to describe homosexuality, not as being a normal variation of human sexuality, but as being a mental illness, disease (or) disorder." Barsio wrote on Tuesday.

The ruling also said conversion therapists could not advertise their "success rate" of turning people into heterosexuals because "there is no factual basis for calculating these statistics."

Moreover:

5 Things You Should Know About Gay Conversion Therapy

Homosexuality is not considered a mental disorder, so the American Psychological Association (APA) does not recommend "curing" same-sex attraction in any case. Instead, societal ignorance, prejudice and pressure to conform to heterosexual desires are the real dangers to gay people's mental health, according to a 1997 statement on "conversion" or "reparative" therapy by the APA.

 

[emilynghiem]

"Excuse me, but being gay is not a belief any more than having Down's syndrome is a belief [or believing the ACA is wrong permits one to opt out]. The bias is in believing that one has a right to justify discrimination based on one's religion."

JakeStarkey and orogenicman
I'm comparing BELIEFS about homosexuality.

Nobody is banning homosexuality, the issue is BELIEFS about either gay marriage,
traditional marriage, or BELIEF if homosexuality is a choice of behavior and not a physically born condition.

Where people are equal is that we have BELIEFS that are equally defensible as protected by laws from discrimination.

If the govt respects all BELIEFS equally, we wouldn't be having these fights in the public realm.
These issues and conflicts over BELIEFS would be settled in private where people retain equal and free choice.
These do not belong in govt because they involve FAITH based BELIEFS either for or against homosexuality
or gay marriage as being natural or unnatural and either in violation or not with this person or that person's beliefs, etc.

Govt is not supposed to serve as a referee much less a deciding voice in matters of BELIEFS.

The government isn't required to respect beliefs. It is prohibited from the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, or impeding the free exercise of religion. That last part has been used to justify actions discriminating against people for all sorts of reasons, not just the discrimination against gays. And many attempts have been made to try to bypass the first part. Passing a law that allows one to discriminate against people based on a religious belief is an attempt to use the law to establish a religious tenant.

Moreover, the 14th amendment makes it very clear that no one can be denied equal protection under the law. That includes the LGBT.

YES orogenicman AGREE on BOTH POINTS ABOVE
1. this is what I mean -- neither establishing or prohibiting
And the people who believe in not doing business with gay couples, or who believe in free choice of both customers and businesses to conduct business BY MUTUAL CONSENT
cannot be forced to violate their own beliefs by govt establishing some rule imposing otherwise

2. YES so in order to respect BOTH the beliefs of both sides in these conflicts,
then the rule could be to only conduct and exchange business between parties by MUTUAL CONSENT,
and to resolve any conflicts by CONSENSUS or don't do business together.

That protects BOTH parties and doesn't discriminate by defending one and punishing the other.

It's the fact there is CONFLICT between their beliefs that is the culprit.
So people can choose to AVOID conflict, to agree to AVOID legal actions and costs
from clashing beliefs.

Similar to Lutherans not disrupting a Catholic service if you know they only serve communion to Catholics.
If your policy is different, if you believe in universal communions open to everyone, then go to a Lutheran service.

Why can't we have the same courtesy with businesses?

If I want an erotic metal video edited, I would not go to an editor of Christian family films and argue with them
trying to force them to produce a sex video, or film a gay wedding, etc. if that's not what they want to do.

I am thinking to write letters to governors, business leaders, and lawyers
to quit exploiting this issue to create more lawsuits and legislative battles.

Invest in mediation and alternative conflict resolution.

The issue of homosexuality is not clear cut with only one right answer:
there are as many people with experiences that this is natural and lifelong
as there are those who homosexuality wasn't natural for and could change.

That should be left to the private choice of individuals and not force "one set of beliefs" on everyone
when not all cases are the same. Either mediate to resolve conflict, or include different beliefs,
or leave it to the private sector and individuals.

Marriage for either same sex or traditional couples can still be held in churches,
and keep civil unions and contracts with the state, so everyone is treated equally. And no beliefs are pushed one way or the other by the state, unless all people of per state AGREE to public laws. If they can't agree and write laws neutrally enough, leave those parts to the private sector and only keep the terms that all people agree to without religious conflict.

 

[emilynghiem]

NOPE

Yes. The bias of the far right social cons cannot be used to detract from the liberty of others in public commerce when the goods and services are offered to every one else.

This is not a democratic theocracy like Iran.

This is a secular republic where the final opinion is invested in the SCOTUS.

You can believe whatever you want, but you cannot do whatever you want in public and sometimes not even in private.

Hi JakeStarkey
I AGREE with you neither should the rightwing creeds overrule the left.
Unlike you, I also say that neither should the leftwing creeds overrule the right.

I believe in consensus on laws that satisfy and represent people and parties of ALL creeds,
or else separate and fund their own programs without harassment or imposition or interference.

Thus, this will treat people of all creeds equally.

I believe this will at the same time STOP abuses from the right that will be checked by the left.

Where you and I seem to disagree, is that you wouldn't stop the left from going too far, but I would.
On matters of beliefs, the left can just as readily fund their own programs as they ask the right to do.

I expect left and right to check each other. And especially with matters of beliefs
and creeds, only support public laws where these AGREE. For other issues,
they can use majority, or super majority, or court ruling, but for creeds and belies, obviously that doesn't fly.
Both sides want their beliefs protected in full and not compromised, which is why beliefs should be kept out of govt!!!

 

[JakeStarkey]

We are a Constitutional government, and consensus negotiations must be legislated and then opined on.
I understand that you want a system similar to shar'ia private contractual agreement.

What you want, I do not think (but I want to think more about it and do some research, can be imposed on every wedding service provider and every LGBT individual by law.

But try, for heaven's sake, and see where it goes.

 

[orogenicman]

"Excuse me, but being gay is not a belief any more than having Down's syndrome is a belief [or believing the ACA is wrong permits one to opt out]. The bias is in believing that one has a right to justify discrimination based on one's religion."

JakeStarkey and orogenicman
I'm comparing BELIEFS about homosexuality.

Nobody is banning homosexuality, the issue is BELIEFS about either gay marriage,
traditional marriage, or BELIEF if homosexuality is a choice of behavior and not a physically born condition.

Where people are equal is that we have BELIEFS that are equally defensible as protected by laws from discrimination.

If the govt respects all BELIEFS equally, we wouldn't be having these fights in the public realm.
These issues and conflicts over BELIEFS would be settled in private where people retain equal and free choice.
These do not belong in govt because they involve FAITH based BELIEFS either for or against homosexuality
or gay marriage as being natural or unnatural and either in violation or not with this person or that person's beliefs, etc.

Govt is not supposed to serve as a referee much less a deciding voice in matters of BELIEFS.

The government isn't required to respect beliefs. It is prohibited from the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, or impeding the free exercise of religion. That last part has been used to justify actions discriminating against people for all sorts of reasons, not just the discrimination against gays. And many attempts have been made to try to bypass the first part. Passing a law that allows one to discriminate against people based on a religious belief is an attempt to use the law to establish a religious tenant.

Moreover, the 14th amendment makes it very clear that no one can be denied equal protection under the law. That includes the LGBT.

YES orogenicman AGREE on BOTH POINTS ABOVE
1. this is what I mean -- neither establishing or prohibiting
And the people who believe in not doing business with gay couples, or who believe in free choice of both customers and businesses to conduct business BY MUTUAL CONSENT
cannot be forced to violate their own beliefs by govt establishing some rule imposing otherwise

2. YES so in order to respect BOTH the beliefs of both sides in these conflicts,
then the rule could be to only conduct and exchange business between parties by MUTUAL CONSENT,
and to resolve any conflicts by CONSENSUS or don't do business together.

That protects BOTH parties and doesn't discriminate by defending one and punishing the other.

It's the fact there is CONFLICT between their beliefs that is the culprit.
So people can choose to AVOID conflict, to agree to AVOID legal actions and costs
from clashing beliefs.

Similar to Lutherans not disrupting a Catholic service if you know they only serve communion to Catholics.
If your policy is different, if you believe in universal communions open to everyone, then go to a Lutheran service.

Why can't we have the same courtesy with businesses?

If I want an erotic metal video edited, I would not go to an editor of Christian family films and argue with them
trying to force them to produce a sex video, or film a gay wedding, etc. if that's not what they want to do.

I am thinking to write letters to governors, business leaders, and lawyers
to quit exploiting this issue to create more lawsuits and legislative battles.

Invest in mediation and alternative conflict resolution.

The issue of homosexuality is not clear cut with only one right answer:
there are as many people with experiences that this is natural and lifelong
as there are those who homosexuality wasn't natural for and could change.

That should be left to the private choice of individuals and not force "one set of beliefs" on everyone
when not all cases are the same. Either mediate to resolve conflict, or include different beliefs,
or leave it to the private sector and individuals.

Marriage for either same sex or traditional couples can still be held in churches,
and keep civil unions and contracts with the state, so everyone is treated equally. And no beliefs are pushed one way or the other by the state, unless all people of per state AGREE to public laws. If they can't agree and write laws neutrally enough, leave those parts to the private sector and only keep the terms that all people agree to without religious conflict.

You are repeating yourself. Discriminating against a class of people based on a religious belief when conducting public commerce is NOT protected behavior.

 

[emilynghiem]

We are a Constitutional government, and consensus negotiations must be legislated and then opined on.
I understand that you want a system similar to shar'ia private contractual agreement.

What you want, I do not think (but I want to think more about it and do some research, can be imposed on every wedding service provider and every LGBT individual by law.

But try, for heaven's sake, and see where it goes.

WHATTTT????

We don't have the freedom to form a consensus FIRST
BEFORE making laws? WHAT?

What person does that?

Do we go to court and congress and magically throw things out to make a law
and then go back and read what we wrote?

What the !@#$%^&*() are you saying Jake!

Surely I misunderstand you.

The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written out
and decided upon BEFORE making them law officially.

Look at the Code of Ethics for Govt Service, passed UNANIMOUSLY by Congress:
ethics-commission.net

Those 10 Articles are VERY well written points.

Surely, the people who wrote that worked this out by consensus BEFORE proposing the bill for passage!

JakeStarkey knowing that you are intellectually minded in your discussions and debates with others,
I am sure I must be misreading what you are saying.

Please specify more clearly so it doesn't sound like
people have no right to form agreements first before writing laws to be passed based on those agreement.

If we depended on Congres and Courts to "decide for us" that would be as bad
if not worse than a dictatorship or theocracy of divine right to rule for us.

Clearly the point of the democratic process is to represent the people in matters of law and govt.

And of course that involves resolving conflicts and establishing agreements among
people so that our laws REFLECT the public interest.

That work is first done among the people to redress grievances as much as we can.
Forgive me for misunderstanding what you were trying to say.
Sorry that we were talking past each other, please advise!

 

[emilynghiem]

"Excuse me, but being gay is not a belief any more than having Down's syndrome is a belief [or believing the ACA is wrong permits one to opt out]. The bias is in believing that one has a right to justify discrimination based on one's religion."

JakeStarkey and orogenicman
I'm comparing BELIEFS about homosexuality.

Nobody is banning homosexuality, the issue is BELIEFS about either gay marriage,
traditional marriage, or BELIEF if homosexuality is a choice of behavior and not a physically born condition.

Where people are equal is that we have BELIEFS that are equally defensible as protected by laws from discrimination.

If the govt respects all BELIEFS equally, we wouldn't be having these fights in the public realm.
These issues and conflicts over BELIEFS would be settled in private where people retain equal and free choice.
These do not belong in govt because they involve FAITH based BELIEFS either for or against homosexuality
or gay marriage as being natural or unnatural and either in violation or not with this person or that person's beliefs, etc.

Govt is not supposed to serve as a referee much less a deciding voice in matters of BELIEFS.

The government isn't required to respect beliefs. It is prohibited from the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, or impeding the free exercise of religion. That last part has been used to justify actions discriminating against people for all sorts of reasons, not just the discrimination against gays. And many attempts have been made to try to bypass the first part. Passing a law that allows one to discriminate against people based on a religious belief is an attempt to use the law to establish a religious tenant.

Moreover, the 14th amendment makes it very clear that no one can be denied equal protection under the law. That includes the LGBT.

YES orogenicman AGREE on BOTH POINTS ABOVE
1. this is what I mean -- neither establishing or prohibiting
And the people who believe in not doing business with gay couples, or who believe in free choice of both customers and businesses to conduct business BY MUTUAL CONSENT
cannot be forced to violate their own beliefs by govt establishing some rule imposing otherwise

2. YES so in order to respect BOTH the beliefs of both sides in these conflicts,
then the rule could be to only conduct and exchange business between parties by MUTUAL CONSENT,
and to resolve any conflicts by CONSENSUS or don't do business together.

That protects BOTH parties and doesn't discriminate by defending one and punishing the other.

It's the fact there is CONFLICT between their beliefs that is the culprit.
So people can choose to AVOID conflict, to agree to AVOID legal actions and costs
from clashing beliefs.

Similar to Lutherans not disrupting a Catholic service if you know they only serve communion to Catholics.
If your policy is different, if you believe in universal communions open to everyone, then go to a Lutheran service.

Why can't we have the same courtesy with businesses?

If I want an erotic metal video edited, I would not go to an editor of Christian family films and argue with them
trying to force them to produce a sex video, or film a gay wedding, etc. if that's not what they want to do.

I am thinking to write letters to governors, business leaders, and lawyers
to quit exploiting this issue to create more lawsuits and legislative battles.

Invest in mediation and alternative conflict resolution.

The issue of homosexuality is not clear cut with only one right answer:
there are as many people with experiences that this is natural and lifelong
as there are those who homosexuality wasn't natural for and could change.

That should be left to the private choice of individuals and not force "one set of beliefs" on everyone
when not all cases are the same. Either mediate to resolve conflict, or include different beliefs,
or leave it to the private sector and individuals.

Marriage for either same sex or traditional couples can still be held in churches,
and keep civil unions and contracts with the state, so everyone is treated equally. And no beliefs are pushed one way or the other by the state, unless all people of per state AGREE to public laws. If they can't agree and write laws neutrally enough, leave those parts to the private sector and only keep the terms that all people agree to without religious conflict.

You are repeating yourself. Discriminating against a class of people based on a religious belief when conducting public commerce is NOT protected behavior.

And that goes BOTH ways!!!

So keep the conflicting beliefs out of public policy and business transactions
and neither side discriminates against the other.