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

[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.

And that goes BOTH ways!!!

Not in this case. Homosexuality is neither a belief nor a choice. Religion is both a belief and a choice.

 

[emilynghiem]

I think this article clarifies the issues at stake in plain language, without getting political or religious:

Discrimination and the New Inclusive America - Reason.com

Excerpt from JOHN STOSSEL:

"American lawyers talk about special protection for religious freedom, and in the Hobby Lobby case the Supreme Court said you could escape onerous parts of Obamacare by paying lawyers a fortune and convincing judges that you are a closely-held corporation with religious objections. But why must you be religious to practice what you believe? This should be about individual freedom.

Of course, government must not discriminate. The worst of American racism and homophobia—slavery, segregation enforced by Jim Crow laws, bans on interracial marriage, anti-sodomy laws, etc.—was government-enforced discrimination. That was wrong, and it was right for the federal government to intervene.

But private actions are different. If I start a business with my own money, I ought to be allowed to serve only libertarians, people who wear blue shirts, whatever. It's my business!

My customers have choices. If I am racist or anti-gay, the free market will punish me. Enough people would boycott my business that I would probably lose money quickly.

It would actually be useful to see which businesses refuse to serve one group or another. Tolerance is revealed by how people behave when they are free. American law fosters the illusion that everyone is unbiased, while their real feelings remain hidden, making them harder to boycott, shame or debate.

Punishment from the market is enough. The heavy hand of law is not needed here.

However, given America's history, I accept that there are a few exceptions. In the South, people banned from a lunch counter had few other choices. The Civil Rights Act's intrusion into private behavior was probably necessary to counter the damage done by Jim Crow laws.

But today such coercion is no longer needed. Even in the difficult days of Reconstruction, after the Civil War, business began to bring together whites and blacks who might not always have liked each other but who wanted the best deals. It took several years for racists to get Jim Crow passed so they could put a stop to that erosion of the old racist ways. Government helped keep racism going for several more decades.

Individuals should be allowed to discriminate. I discriminate all the time. I favor people over others when I choose my friends, jobs, hobbies, clubs, religion, etc. So do you."

I remember when John Stossle used to do useful stories about things that mattered.

Now he's just another Libertardian Tool.

hazlnut
I remember when gay advocacy was about defending and supporting the rights of gays,
not pushing it so far that it became a threat to other people and to businesses.

I remember when people VALUED voluntary contributions to provide health care and help to others, and APPRECIATED
how much more EFFECTIVE it is when programs are set up and run voluntarily where the community OWNS and runs them. Instead of NOT TRUSTING people to help but seeking to FORCE government control in less effective ways.

I look back at how the founders and settlers built communities and towns themselves. And now, people all over the country depend on Congress and federal govt to do anything, having lost all sense of ownership and responsibility for development.

hazlnut as sad as it is, even Freed Slaves and their descendents who built the district I live in were better off financially than people today dependent on welfare. Because these Blacks weren't accepted as citizens until 100 years later with the Civil Rights Act, they built their own churches, businesses, and houses and paved their own streets with bricks they laid by hand. Because they got no help from govt. One of the local pastors shows the school kids old photos of the historic church community, dressed in the finest clothes as very well to do people. Because they didn't wait on gov to spoonfeed them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Emily, I must be misunderstanding you.

How do you see creating a consensus as you describe it?

One paragraph, no more, please.

 

[emilynghiem]

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!!!

Not in this case. Homosexuality is neither a belief nor a choice. Religion is both a belief and a choice.

Again it is BELIEFS about homosexuality that are the issue here.
The govt cannot endorse one set of BELIEFS about homosexuality and discriminate against the other.

People of BOTH beliefs can CHOOSE to respect and include each other equally
and not do business if it's going to impose on one OR the other.

Just like choosing to get married or choosing to divorce.
If you don't both agree to get married or to stay married, then don't be married!

Nobody has to SUE the other partner to stay in the marriage!
If their ways are not compatible, the conflict is mutual and no reason to judge one or the other.

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily, I must be misunderstanding you.

How do you see creating a consensus as you describe it?

One paragraph, no more, please.

people freely choose to resolve conflicts, identify points they agree on,
and agree where to fund or manage separate programs where they disagree.
after these points are hashed out, they can be formulated into proposed reforms or legislation,
to go through proper channels. and if conflicts arise in the process, then more conflict resolution is facilitated.

 

[Mac1958]

.

This is the way we're going, gang, get used to it.

Submit to the will of The Collective. Don't speak out. Keep your opinions to yourself or you'll pay.

Disagree with The Collective and there will be consequences. Don't like it? Too bad.

Fundamental change, indeed! Enjoy!

.

 

[emilynghiem]

.

This is the way we're going, gang, get used to it.

Submit to the will of The Collective. Don't speak out. Keep your opinions to yourself or you'll pay.

Disagree with The Collective and there will be consequences. Don't like it? Too bad.

Fundamental change, indeed! Enjoy!

.

I'd say the Democrat leaders are heading for a lawsuit.

If all the constituents who are sick of being promised prison reform and not getting it,
or promised universal health care and not getting it,
join forces with the other party members from socialists to green progressives to libertarians,
tea party and rightwing, that's enough political momentum to lobby to set up a system of
restitution for all the costs of violating religious freedom with political discrimination by creed.

24 billion from the govt shutdown
30 trillion from Iraq war spending
15 million to destroy national history in Freedmen's Town
1.6 billion to bail out bad corporate loans to destroy Headwaters Redwood Forest

Sure, we could pay to set up facilities in every state and along the border for
military hospitals, correctional and educational facilities to create jobs and provide public services and health care.

And charge the costs to the corporate crooks who profited at taxpayer expense.
While lawyers are paid on commission (added to the costs paid by wrongdoers) to work out longterm financial plans and settlements to get the public paid back, in the meantime, we could set up a systems of credits and restitution
through the Federal Reserve to manage the reimbursed amounts applied to pay for jobs and cost of rebuilding and reform.

The only thing missing is parties are fighting each other to prove who is more to blame.
Why not expose ALL the wrongdoing and go after ALL of them?
Get the public paid back in credits and apply billions if not trillions we already racked up
toward corrections, reform and sustainable solutions instead of charging more taxes and debts to taxpayers?

 

[Moonglow]

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

Sacrilege? I don't remember Christ coming to Earth to persecute anyone.....

 

[Moonglow]

.

This is the way we're going, gang, get used to it.

Submit to the will of The Collective. Don't speak out. Keep your opinions to yourself or you'll pay.

Disagree with The Collective and there will be consequences. Don't like it? Too bad.

Fundamental change, indeed! Enjoy!

.

I'd say the Democrat leaders are heading for a lawsuit.

If all the constituents who are sick of being promised prison reform and not getting it,
or promised universal health care and not getting it,
join forces with the other party members from socialists to green progressives to libertarians,
tea party and rightwing, that's enough political momentum to lobby to set up a system of
restitution for all the costs of violating religious freedom with political discrimination by creed.

24 billion from the govt shutdown
30 trillion from Iraq war spending
15 million to destroy national history in Freedmen's Town
1.6 billion to bail out bad corporate loans to destroy Headwaters Redwood Forest

Sure, we could pay to set up facilities in every state and along the border for
military hospitals, correctional and educational facilities to create jobs and provide public services and health care.

And charge the costs to the corporate crooks who profited at taxpayer expense.
While lawyers are paid on commission (added to the costs paid by wrongdoers) to work out longterm financial plans and settlements to get the public paid back, in the meantime, we could set up a systems of credits and restitution
through the Federal Reserve to manage the reimbursed amounts applied to pay for jobs and cost of rebuilding and reform.

The only thing missing is parties are fighting each other to prove who is more to blame.
Why not expose ALL the wrongdoing and go after ALL of them?
Get the public paid back in credits and apply billions if not trillions we already racked up
toward corrections, reform and sustainable solutions instead of charging more taxes and debts to taxpayers?

Again you must look at each case, seems that many are setups for lawsuits, just like Westboro Church operates....Now speak out against all that scam the system from those with true intentions of the heart, and stop inducing innocent parties into the fray....

 

[orogenicman]

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!!!

Not in this case. Homosexuality is neither a belief nor a choice. Religion is both a belief and a choice.

Again it is BELIEFS about homosexuality that are the issue here.
The govt cannot endorse one set of BELIEFS about homosexuality and discriminate against the other.

People of BOTH beliefs can CHOOSE to respect and include each other equally
and not do business if it's going to impose on one OR the other.

Just like choosing to get married or choosing to divorce.
If you don't both agree to get married or to stay married, then don't be married!

Nobody has to SUE the other partner to stay in the marriage!
If their ways are not compatible, the conflict is mutual and no reason to judge one or the other.

The fact that homosexuality is neither a belief nor a choice is not a belief. It is a fact. Trying to make this into an issue of belief is utter nonsense. Another fact which I have repeatedly pointed out here is that discrimination against a class of people based on a religious belief is not protected behavior.

 

[Mac1958]

.

The law (funny how the Left likes to cherry pick laws -- illegal immigration, anyone?) is only an issue if someone decides to report the "crime" and move forward with it.

A person who would press charges would be doing it to punish and intimidate and control someone else.

They want to force another person to provide a service against their will.

This isn't about "laws". It's not even about homosexuality. It's about control, intimidation, punishment.

.

 

[emilynghiem]

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!!!

Not in this case. Homosexuality is neither a belief nor a choice. Religion is both a belief and a choice.

Again it is BELIEFS about homosexuality that are the issue here.
The govt cannot endorse one set of BELIEFS about homosexuality and discriminate against the other.

People of BOTH beliefs can CHOOSE to respect and include each other equally
and not do business if it's going to impose on one OR the other.

Just like choosing to get married or choosing to divorce.
If you don't both agree to get married or to stay married, then don't be married!

Nobody has to SUE the other partner to stay in the marriage!
If their ways are not compatible, the conflict is mutual and no reason to judge one or the other.

The fact that homosexuality is neither a belief nor a choice is not a belief. It is a fact. Trying to make this into an issue of belief is utter nonsense. Another fact which I have repeatedly pointed out here is that discrimination against a class of people based on a religious belief is not protected behavior.

orogenicman again nobody has to argue about homosexuality directly
instead of arguing prochoice/prolife, I am saying to treat BELIEFS
about these things as EQUAL BELIEFS or CREEDS.

And not place a judgment by govt on WHICH BELIEFS are endorsed or not.

People have differing beliefs such as
* whether homosexuality is inherent, like race is a born trait
* or a choice of BEHAVIOR (so if you choose to dress up in some costume that isn't appropriate,
that is not any more "protected" than dressing up as the opposite gender)
* or something that can change or is spiritually determined (and not proven)
* or gay marriage is different from traditional marriage
etc.

Instead of trying to argue about homosexuality itself, which will go in circles back and forth,
because beliefs on both side have not been proven, this is like REFRAINING from taking sides over prochoice/prolife
and just treating these EQUALLY as BELIEFS. So that laws are made that equally accommodate BOTH sets of beliefs.

That's my whole point orogenicman
NOT to argue about homosexuality itself, which is NOT a belief.

But to work with people no matter WHAT their beliefs are,
and form a consensus on policy that satisfies and represents such people
EQUALLY
REGARDLESS of their beliefs (about homosexuality, marriage, discrimination, etc etc.)

if people agree

1. to mediate and resolve conflicts by consensus or else refrain from making public
laws or doing business, that would keep these issues in private where they remain a free choice
and nobody's beliefs about any of these things is discriminating against.
if someone feels imposed upon, then work out that grievance until it is resolved.
but NOT at the expense of "going too far" and creating an ADDITIONAL grievance by someone else.
work out solutions by consensus and this won't keep happening.

2. to form a network of referral businesses, so if one business cannot do all the work requested,
another can step in as a contractor and complete the services.

* For example the baker can bake the cake, but some other contractor delivers it who doesn't oppose gay weddings.
* or another decorator/artist can step in and spell out the words or decorations that the bakery didn't believe in doing.

I believe in free speech. And if someone wanted an art cake as a prop for something,
sure, I'd do it TO PREVENT A LAWSUIT. I wouldn't do it because I support hate speech, I'd still disagree with the content,
but I believe in amicable resolutions instead of lawsuits.

There are other ways these issues can be resolved
instead of trying to abuse govt to endorse one set of beliefs or values about homosexuality over others
when beliefs about that are a private matter of FREE CHOICE not govt FORCING people to do business
or accept something they don't believe in.

 

[emilynghiem]

.

The law (funny how the Left likes to cherry pick laws -- illegal immigration, anyone?) is only an issue if someone decides to report the "crime" and move forward with it.

A person who would press charges would be doing it to punish and intimidate and control someone else.

They want to force another person to provide a service against their will.

This isn't about "laws". It's not even about homosexuality. It's about control, intimidation, punishment.

.

I don't think they even see the bias and why this is happening.
Because gays have been shamefully abused, harassed stalked or killed, discriminated against
and treated as sick or criminal in the past,
this seems to be backlash to equally oppose and punish by projecting onto Christians blamed the most for past wrongs.

Two wrongs don't make anything right.

But this is some phase society has to go through
because the wrongs and injuries from the past were never addressed.
So this is one way of seeking to vent and demand justice.
As much damage was done in the past from going too far with anti-gay beliefs
to the point of imposing unfairly, I guess this same crowd
has to make the very same mistake they criticized in order to come out even.
To understand that even though they didn't MEAN to overreach and impose on others,
they are doing exactly what was done to gays in the past, by overreaching.

If Christians are that much against gays, they should have stayed away
instead of imposing their values and trying to punish or condemn others.
But because of the Christians who went too far,
now instead of just defending gay rights, these are also being pushed too far to become onesided special rights.

The solution would be to stay away if you know you have differences in beliefs and ways.
The same way Christians didn't agree to separate, but kept imposing and pushing,
I guess this is the other side's turn to do that, so they understand the difference and how easy it is to push too far.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear orogenicman
I will try again to explain this.

I find that if take the position that accepts ALL people's beliefs as creeds, regardless their opinion or perception of homosexuality, their political beliefs or ability to work or not work with certain other groups, whether religious or political,
then I can respect the CONSENT of that person as close to how they represent themselves.
I do not expect to take another belief outside of theirs and FORCE them to adopt it or change for that within their own realm.

Now if they start injecting or imposing ON OTHERS in realms of public policy and govt,
that's where other people with other beliefs will push back. When both sides do this,
nobody gets their beliefs protected, but they all gamble with losing and compromising left and right.

In order for ME to treat people equally, I respect their beliefs.
And where we seem to have problems is when they won't respect each other's but keep pushing biased laws
that impose one over the other instead of resolving the root conflicts over issues (or agreeing to separate
where beliefs are involved and can't be forced to change).

orogenicman in mediation, the facilitation cannot be setup to exclude people at the start. That is as flawed as setting up the scientific method where you already assume certain conclusions at the beginning.
The whole process will be skewed if you already assume something.

Instead of saying one group is right and another is wrong, the neutral process starts at accepting that all people have a right to their beliefs, and the goal is to respect consent at all times during negotiations and seeking resolution satisfying to all.

It does NOT mean to endorse those beliefs.

To treat people equally, I recommend focusing on how their BELIEFS about homosexuality can be treated equally.
Even if we disagree about homosexuality per se. We do NOT need to resolve all those issues in order to agree to accommodate all beliefs equally. Our beliefs and perceptions about homosexuality can still be in conflict,
and we can still have a consensus on policy by sticking to points we DO agree are fair to all people regardless.

 

[FA_Q2]

"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.

Behaviors are not protected - they are restricted or not restricted. You are also incorrect - there is nothing inherently illegal in discriminating at all. You can discriminate for a whole host of reasons and there is nothing legally stopping you from doing so. The only time that you are not allowed to discriminate is when it falls under specifically enumerated protected classes. The question has never really been weather or not you can discriminate but weather or not sexual orientation should fall under a protected class. The idea that it should I believe is sorely misguided. It relies heavily on the incorrect comparison with racial discrimination - a comparison that you even reached for:

????

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.

THe comparison is completely incorrect. Racial discrimination was not half a dozen bakers throughout the nation refusing to bake cakes for blacks. It was the entire fucking nation beating them down. They were less than whites even after they were freed. To compare that to the 'plight' of gays borders on insane. There is no real impact for gays in thew small number of bakeries and photographers that do not want to attend to their weddings. The real discrimination was the right of marriage being removed. That has been addressed. Violating some people's rights of free association is simply a piss poor solution to a problem that really does not exist. gays have no issues getting cakes and pictures - they are completely free in this society. To make them a protected class is just asinine.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

See above. The 2 instances are not even remotely similar. We had to enact laws against racial discrimination not because such things should be forced but because to not do so would have rendered equal life impossible for blacks and other minorities. It was a major problem that required governmental involvement or people would have been treated as less than whites. Gays are not facing the same thing or anything even remotely close.

 

[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.

Behaviors are not protected - they are restricted or not restricted. You are also incorrect - there is nothing inherently illegal in discriminating at all. You can discriminate for a whole host of reasons and there is nothing legally stopping you from doing so. The only time that you are not allowed to discriminate is when it falls under specifically enumerated protected classes. The question has never really been weather or not you can discriminate but weather or not sexual orientation should fall under a protected class. The idea that it should I believe is sorely misguided. It relies heavily on the incorrect comparison with racial discrimination - a comparison that you even reached for:

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.

THe comparison is completely incorrect. Racial discrimination was not half a dozen bakers throughout the nation refusing to bake cakes for blacks. It was the entire fucking nation beating them down. They were less than whites even after they were freed. To compare that to the 'plight' of gays borders on insane. There is no real impact for gays in thew small number of bakeries and photographers that do not want to attend to their weddings. The real discrimination was the right of marriage being removed. That has been addressed. Violating some people's rights of free association is simply a piss poor solution to a problem that really does not exist. gays have no issues getting cakes and pictures - they are completely free in this society. To make them a protected class is just asinine.

Dude, gays have been beaten, stabbed, shot, run over, lynched, murdered, etc, for millennia, and it is still going on today, even in this country. So when you belittle the fact by saying "Racial discrimination was not half a dozen bakers throughout the nation refusing to bake cakes for blacks" as a comparison to what is happening today with gays, I just have to ask wtf are you babbling about? A religious bigot refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding is a symptom of a much larger problem that has been going on in this country since it was first founded. You know it, and I know it. So don't be obtuse.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Homosexuality is not about beliefs... it's about behavior. Behavior which is a manifestation of mental disorder.

No upside, not for the afflicted or those in anyway affiliated with such.

 

[orogenicman]

Homosexuality is not about beliefs... it's about behavior. Behavior which is a manifestation of mental disorder.

No upside, not for the afflicted or those in anyway affiliated with such.

Wrong. The American Psychological Association has said many times that homosexuality is NOT a mental disorder. It is not included in the DSM V used to diagnose mental disorders. Next.

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

Behaviors are not protected - they are restricted or not restricted. You are also incorrect - there is nothing inherently illegal in discriminating at all. You can discriminate for a whole host of reasons and there is nothing legally stopping you from doing so. The only time that you are not allowed to discriminate is when it falls under specifically enumerated protected classes. The question has never really been weather or not you can discriminate but weather or not sexual orientation should fall under a protected class. The idea that it should I believe is sorely misguided. It relies heavily on the incorrect comparison with racial discrimination - a comparison that you even reached for:

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.

THe comparison is completely incorrect. Racial discrimination was not half a dozen bakers throughout the nation refusing to bake cakes for blacks. It was the entire fucking nation beating them down. They were less than whites even after they were freed. To compare that to the 'plight' of gays borders on insane. There is no real impact for gays in thew small number of bakeries and photographers that do not want to attend to their weddings. The real discrimination was the right of marriage being removed. That has been addressed. Violating some people's rights of free association is simply a piss poor solution to a problem that really does not exist. gays have no issues getting cakes and pictures - they are completely free in this society. To make them a protected class is just asinine.

Dude, gays have been beaten, stabbed, shot, run over, lynched, murdered, etc, for millennia, and it is still going on today, even in this country. So when you belittle the fact by saying "Racial discrimination was not half a dozen bakers throughout the nation refusing to bake cakes for blacks" as a comparison to what is happening today with gays, I just have to ask wtf are you babbling about? A religious bigot refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding is a symptom of a much larger problem that has been going on in this country since it was first founded. You know it, and I know it. So don't be obtuse.

orogenicman
it is generally ill advised for any group to argue about or compare their history of pain and struggle to any other group. I find it better to listen and respect EACH PERSON'S struggle and process, and not try to GROUP them or see people as REPRESENTING a group.

For all I know, some Slaves could be like William Ellison, and able to buy their families out of slavery in a matter of years, and even BECOME slave owners and make money off the trade. So you cannot even compare the experience of one SLAVE to another SLAVE who may have been RAPED or jumped overboard off the ship.

What makes anyone think we could compare the whole history of Black Slaves, to Gays across the centuries, or Slaves out of Egypt, or Native American Genocides?

Isn't one person's story and process in life worth its own dignity?
Do we have to quantify or qualify that? Glorify one person or denigrate another because of their background?