Gods Own Party Can’t Get Over Same Sex Marriage

[emilynghiem]

^ And the same can be said of same sex marriage in the govt policy.
It favors people who believe in including same sex marriage
and discriminates against people for whom this ritual is against their beliefs.
similar to atheists who don't believe in including Christian prayer while
Buddhists have no problem with it nor do Muslims I know and they aren't Christian.^
TheProgressivePatriot

Oh please, we have been over this before. Forcing those who would discriminate against others to, instead treat them equally, IS NOT DISCRIMINATING. That is just ridiculous. You cannot make everyone happy and I have no problem in making narrow minded bigots unhappy.

No it's not TheProgressivePatriot
When Christians complain about being denied prayer in schools,
the liberals and atheists make SIMILAR arguments
about distinguishing PEOPLE from their PRACTICES.

The PEOPLE are allowed to do what they want,
just not IMPLEMENT the PRACTICES or EXPRESSIONS
in govt policy or public schools/institutions where this is
IMPOSED on other people.

It's the PRACTICES and EXPRESSIONS that can't be imposed.
Like Crosses, Prayers, Bibles and Scriptures, Images of Jesus etc.

Which way do you want it TheProgressivePatriot?

If you want govt to endorse "same sex marriage" whether or not people
agree or BELIEVE in it,
are you OKAY with schools/govt forcing EVERYONE to
INCLUDE "Christian prayer and crosses" on school and public property?

Fine, TheProgressivePatriot
if you ARE willing to argue the Govt should be in the business of forcing
both
* atheists to tolerate Crosses and "be subject to participation" in Prayers on school and public property
* Christians to tolerate gay designs on cakes and "be subject to endorse or participate" in same sex weddings
without free choice to refuse these as rituals they don't believe in but VIOLATE their beliefs
At least you are Consistent.
You are saying inclusion of diverse expressions is more important for everyone to be equal.

However, if you enforce the
Atheist or Nonchristian right to REJECT the Practice of Christian Prayer or Crosses/Bibles displayed on public property
but not the
Christian right to REJECT the Practice of Same Sex Marriage that conflicts with their beliefs and free choice

I argue that is DISCRIMINATION by creed.
Do I argue the other way? Yes!
It is DISCRIMINATION by creed for the
Christian to enforce Rejection of Same Sex Marriage as a spiritual practice belief or choice
while IMPOSING Christian Prayer in Schools where that BEHAVIOR and EXPRESSION is what is being refused.

Do you understand how this is Discrimination
not to treat these cases the same?
* Christian Prayer and Expression and Ritual embedded in public policy or institutions against the beliefs and "free exercise" of others
* Same Sex Marriage and other LGBT Expression and Ritual embedded in public policy or institutions against the beliefs and free exercise of others

You seem to see why people have the choice and legal argument
to refuse Christian Prayer, can you understand this when it
comes to refusing Same Sex Marriage?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

In the case of Crosses or prayer, what harm is caused by allowing a teacher's memorial on public school property
to display a cross? What harm is caused by allowing a Veteran's memorial to stand that is built with a Cross in the design?
Yet these things were subjects of lawsuits for removal based on PRINCIPLE.

I really do no understand what that has to do with same sex marriage but since you asked, the harm is that it alienates and marginalizes those who fine such symbols oppressive . It is showing favoritism for the symbol of one religion over others on public property. Have you read the first amendment?

If someone thinks that he is being harmed, alienated, marginalized, or oppressed, because he sees symbols associated with beliefs other than his own, then that person has much bigger problems, that will not be solved, will not even be addressed by censoring those symbols.

It is not the responsibility of mainstream society, nor of any member thereof, to sacrifice those freedoms of expression and religion that are affirmed by the First Amendment, in order to pander to mental weaklings who imagine that they are being harmed by the fact that others are being allowed to hold and express beliefs that these pathetic, pussified cretins find disagreeable.

Most bizarre of all, the premise that you express, that the First Amendment allows, and even requires, the exact sort of censorship and suppression that it was explicitly written to prohibit. Just one more datum to demonstrate that modern LIbEralism has degenerated into what can only honestly be characterized now as a mental and moral disease.

Roy Moore would agree with you but the law is on my side:
Religious Holiday Displays on Public Property - Freedom From Religion Foundation

It is a fundamental principle of Establishment Clause jurisprudence that government is prohibited from advancing, promoting or endorsing religion. The government cannot prefer one religion over another or prefer religion over non-religion. Therefore, it is easy to see how members of the public are confused when they see a government-sponsored crèche or menorah in front of city hall or located on the grounds of some other public property. Generally, the government is allowed to celebrate the holidays with secular decorations, such as lights and depictions of Santa Claus, and in narrow circumstances, a crèche or other patently religious symbols. The two relevant Supreme Court decisions, Lynch v. Donnelly, and Allegheny v. ACLU, were decided after a fact-sensitive analysis. Indeed the Court continually stresses that the constitutionality of such displays are determined on a case-by-case basis. These decisions are discussed in further detail below.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

In the case of the Business, the owners apply the same standard and
refuse to design or participate in any activity or message that conflicts with their beliefs against same sex marriage,
whether the customers is gay, straight, bi, cis, trans or whatever.

They refuse ALL people because they don't believe in THAT activity for them.
So that is choosing not to engage in BEHAVIOR and is not about the people.

More nonsense. A wedding cake is a wedding cake. The only difference is that the names may show that it is for two people of the same gender, and if that assails the bakers sensibilities, they should go into another line of work

Having two males on it instead of a male and a female.

They need to get over it or get another job

 

[emilynghiem]

In the case of the Business, the owners apply the same standard and
refuse to design or participate in any activity or message that conflicts with their beliefs against same sex marriage,
whether the customers is gay, straight, bi, cis, trans or whatever.

They refuse ALL people because they don't believe in THAT activity for them.
So that is choosing not to engage in BEHAVIOR and is not about the people.

More nonsense. A wedding cake is a wedding cake. The only difference is that the names may show that it is for two people of the same gender, and if that assails the bakers sensibilities, they should go into another line of work

Okay TheProgressivePatriot
If "freedom of speech" doesn't matter per content,
and whatever we say is the same,
then it "shouldn't matter" if
* evolution or creation
* God or secular forces of "Nature" in life are discussed as the source of natural laws
* Christian prayer or secular subjects
are Presented in Schools.

Why would Atheists need to sue to remove Crosses or Bibles?
If these are just "decorations"???

Do you get my point here?
You and I have the right to argue that these do not belong
in public institutions or on public property.

We are not refusing to accommodate those PEOPLE in schools,
but drawing the line on ACTIVITIES exercise and expressions
that are faith based and conflict with the beliefs of others.

Is it YOUR choice what constitutes what others believe or not?
No, THEY explain what they believe or don't and why this is imposing.

And that's what Christians are trying to do here.

There is NO PROBLEM requiring bakers to sell or serve
any OTHER cake design they normally sell or serve to other Customers,
so all the Customers are offered the same range of cakes and design services.
The straight/heterosexual/cisgender Customers and Couples
ALSO cannot order a "same sex design" or they will be told the same standards apply and refused.

Thanks TheProgressivePatriot
I know you are TRYING to make some sense out of this.
Because you are sincere in trying to be as honest and fair as you are asking of others,
this shows it is a matter of BELIEF and it not just any other idea or argument that
can be easily resolved. So the courts and the cases regarding these issues
are NOT ALWAYS people "trying to be discriminatory" but just like you
and me, we are trying to defend what we believe from infringement by law.

This is why this is happening.
We don't mean to step on each other's beliefs,
but we don't always understand the dynamic on the other side
and just see the discrimination against us and our beliefs on our side!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

In the case of the Business, the owners apply the same standard and
refuse to design or participate in any activity or message that conflicts with their beliefs against same sex marriage,
whether the customers is gay, straight, bi, cis, trans or whatever.

They refuse ALL people because they don't believe in THAT activity for them.
So that is choosing not to engage in BEHAVIOR and is not about the people.

More nonsense. A wedding cake is a wedding cake. The only difference is that the names may show that it is for two people of the same gender, and if that assails the bakers sensibilities, they should go into another line of work

Okay TheProgressivePatriot
If "freedom of speech" doesn't matter per content,
and whatever we say is the same,
then it "shouldn't matter" if
* evolution or creation
* God or secular forces of "Nature" in life are discussed as the source of natural laws
* Christian prayer or secular subjects
are Presented in Schools.

Why would Atheists need to sue to remove Crosses or Bibles?
If these are just "decorations"???

Do you get my point here?
You and I have the right to argue that these do not belong
in public institutions or on public property.

We are not refusing to accommodate those PEOPLE in schools,
but drawing the line on ACTIVITIES exercise and expressions
that are faith based and conflict with the beliefs of others.

Is it YOUR choice what constitutes what others believe or not?
No, THEY explain what they believe or don't and why this is imposing.

And that's what Christians are trying to do here.

There is NO PROBLEM requiring bakers to sell or serve
any OTHER cake design they normally sell or serve to other Customers,
so all the Customers are offered the same range of cakes and design services.
The straight/heterosexual/cisgender Customers and Couples
ALSO cannot order a "same sex design" or they will be told the same standards apply and refused.

Thanks TheProgressivePatriot
I know you are TRYING to make some sense out of this.
Because you are sincere in trying to be as honest and fair as you are asking of others,
this shows it is a matter of BELIEF and it not just any other idea or argument that
can be easily resolved. So the courts and the cases regarding these issues
are NOT ALWAYS people "trying to be discriminatory" but just like you
and me, we are trying to defend what we believe from infringement by law.

This is why this is happening.
We don't mean to step on each other's beliefs,
but we don't always understand the dynamic on the other side
and just see the discrimination against us and our beliefs on our side!

You need to settle down, organize your thoughts, and present you ideas in a coherent and concise manner. I am tired of wading this all of this blather

 

[emilynghiem]

In the case of Crosses or prayer, what harm is caused by allowing a teacher's memorial on public school property
to display a cross? What harm is caused by allowing a Veteran's memorial to stand that is built with a Cross in the design?
Yet these things were subjects of lawsuits for removal based on PRINCIPLE.

I really do no understand what that has to do with same sex marriage but since you asked, the harm is that it alienates and marginalizes those who fine such symbols oppressive . It is showing favoritism for the symbol of one religion over others on public property. Have you read the first amendment?

If someone thinks that he is being harmed, alienated, marginalized, or oppressed, because he sees symbols associated with beliefs other than his own, then that person has much bigger problems, that will not be solved, will not even be addressed by censoring those symbols.

It is not the responsibility of mainstream society, nor of any member thereof, to sacrifice those freedoms of expression and religion that are affirmed by the First Amendment, in order to pander to mental weaklings who imagine that they are being harmed by the fact that others are being allowed to hold and express beliefs that these pathetic, pussified cretins find disagreeable.

Most bizarre of all, the premise that you express, that the First Amendment allows, and even requires, the exact sort of censorship and suppression that it was explicitly written to prohibit. Just one more datum to demonstrate that modern LIbEralism has degenerated into what can only honestly be characterized now as a mental and moral disease.

Roy Moore would agree with you but the law is on my side:
Religious Holiday Displays on Public Property - Freedom From Religion Foundation

It is a fundamental principle of Establishment Clause jurisprudence that government is prohibited from advancing, promoting or endorsing religion. The government cannot prefer one religion over another or prefer religion over non-religion. Therefore, it is easy to see how members of the public are confused when they see a government-sponsored crèche or menorah in front of city hall or located on the grounds of some other public property. Generally, the government is allowed to celebrate the holidays with secular decorations, such as lights and depictions of Santa Claus, and in narrow circumstances, a crèche or other patently religious symbols. The two relevant Supreme Court decisions, Lynch v. Donnelly, and Allegheny v. ACLU, were decided after a fact-sensitive analysis. Indeed the Court continually stresses that the constitutionality of such displays are determined on a case-by-case basis. These decisions are discussed in further detail below.

Dear TheProgressivePatriot
1. In Texas, a Bible was allowed to be kept on state grounds
because it was argued and found to be part of HISTORY of the sources and foundation of law.
So STATES have the right to issue what represents the people of that State, too!
2. in cases of Crosses, such as on public Veteran Memorials,
at least ONE major case at Mt. Soledad was resolved by SELLING
and transferring the property to PRIVATE ownership for preservation
so it was no longer on PUBLIC property

This is in keeping with what Conservatives are saying about public schools.

If you allow all schools to be privatized so people have private personal choices,
then these conflicts do not happen because the school is no longer public.

Same with Marriage TheProgressivePatriot
The Libertarians and Constitutionalists similarly argue
to keep ALL Marriages out of the govt, and keep them ALL private.
(only have neutral custody, estate and business/legal partnership
agreements through the state that are secular contracts and
DO NOT define or delineate any references to SOCIAL relations
between the parties)

Again, in Texas for example, legislators resolved the school prayer issue
by agreeing on a MORE NEUTRAL compromise, and allowing generic
"moments of silence" that people generally agreed to pass in place of group prayers.

So this neutral activity ALLOWS for Christian prayer but doesn't
require endorsement through the govt or public institutions for all people.

And likewise NEUTRAL civil unions or partnerships would ALLOW for same sex
marriage but doesn't impose or require endorsement through the state for all people.

 

[emilynghiem]

In the case of the Business, the owners apply the same standard and
refuse to design or participate in any activity or message that conflicts with their beliefs against same sex marriage,
whether the customers is gay, straight, bi, cis, trans or whatever.

They refuse ALL people because they don't believe in THAT activity for them.
So that is choosing not to engage in BEHAVIOR and is not about the people.

More nonsense. A wedding cake is a wedding cake. The only difference is that the names may show that it is for two people of the same gender, and if that assails the bakers sensibilities, they should go into another line of work

Okay TheProgressivePatriot
If "freedom of speech" doesn't matter per content,
and whatever we say is the same,
then it "shouldn't matter" if
* evolution or creation
* God or secular forces of "Nature" in life are discussed as the source of natural laws
* Christian prayer or secular subjects
are Presented in Schools.

Why would Atheists need to sue to remove Crosses or Bibles?
If these are just "decorations"???

Do you get my point here?
You and I have the right to argue that these do not belong
in public institutions or on public property.

We are not refusing to accommodate those PEOPLE in schools,
but drawing the line on ACTIVITIES exercise and expressions
that are faith based and conflict with the beliefs of others.

Is it YOUR choice what constitutes what others believe or not?
No, THEY explain what they believe or don't and why this is imposing.

And that's what Christians are trying to do here.

There is NO PROBLEM requiring bakers to sell or serve
any OTHER cake design they normally sell or serve to other Customers,
so all the Customers are offered the same range of cakes and design services.
The straight/heterosexual/cisgender Customers and Couples
ALSO cannot order a "same sex design" or they will be told the same standards apply and refused.

Thanks TheProgressivePatriot
I know you are TRYING to make some sense out of this.
Because you are sincere in trying to be as honest and fair as you are asking of others,
this shows it is a matter of BELIEF and it not just any other idea or argument that
can be easily resolved. So the courts and the cases regarding these issues
are NOT ALWAYS people "trying to be discriminatory" but just like you
and me, we are trying to defend what we believe from infringement by law.

This is why this is happening.
We don't mean to step on each other's beliefs,
but we don't always understand the dynamic on the other side
and just see the discrimination against us and our beliefs on our side!

You need to settle down, organize your thoughts, and present you ideas in a coherent and concise manner. I am tired of wading this all of this blather

I did spell it out TheProgressivePatriot
A. First I said there are TWO issues of beliefs going on
1. beliefs about LGBT orientation/identity being
natural (not a choice) or unnatural behavior and choice
and/or something that cannot change or something that can
2. beliefs whether Govt has authority to decide
or defend this type of policy FOR others, or if
it falls under "free exercise of religion" for people to choose
These are TWO different layers of beliefs "stacked together"
What is worsening the confusion is FAILING to address
BOTH of these SEPARATELY. Or it's all jumbled together!!!

B. I also spelled out the DIFFERENCE between
1. discrimination against PEOPLE for their background identity beliefs affililiaton etc.
2. discrimination against ACTIVITIES
And I compare it to refusing Christian PRAYER the ACTIVITY
in public schools, while still allowing CHRISTIANS to practice and express their beliefs personally
(just not impose that ACTIVITY or EXPRESSION ON OTHERS who refuse or choose otherwise)

C. I spelled out examples of
1. separating Christian expression such as Crosses
and Prayers from public policy/institutions
by
A. making the property PRIVATE instead of public
B. making laws NEUTRAL such as Moments of Silence instead of group prayers
2. And I compared this with
A. keeping ALL MARRIAGE private instead of public
B. making laws NEUTRAL such as civil unions or partnership contracts
instead of any references to social relations between the people in a contract

Which of the above are not clear?
TheProgressivePatriot Lysistrata can you please clarify these?
Thank you, you will be doing ALL of us a favor
and I appreciate your sincerest effort and invaluable insights!

 

[emilynghiem]

f this is not clear, how about this explanation:
1. the state or businesses would be wrong if
they only allowed STRAIGHT/Heterosexual people to buy
cakes or get licenses for "SAME SEX weddings"
while not allowing SAME SEX couples or homosexual people
from these activities. That is discriminating against PEOPLE.
2. But if both gay and straight people and couples are
BOTH refused "same sex marriage licenses"
or if a business denies this type of design or
declines to participate in a same sex wedding
for EITHER gay or straight people, then that's
choosing not to engage in a certain activity, ritual or behavior.

Let me see if I can cut through the word salad here. No private business or government agency can be forced to provide goods or services to any one group, if it is not something that they do not normally provide in the course of business...See Simple!

Thank you TheProgressivePatriot
So the issue is the Christian bakers are saying
baking designing and serving GENERIC cakes are NOT THE SAME SERVICE
as designs and services for SAME SEX weddings.

Comparing back to the example of School prayer and policies.
To a Buddhist, or Unitarian, maybe it doesn't make a difference
if someone refers to NATURE as the source of life or GOD and CREATION.

But to an ATHEIST, if they want to SUE to remove references
to God and Prayer in Schools and Textbooks, the Govt cannot
force that choice on them!!!

The lawsuits don't even have to be from a person in that school.
Based on principle alone, foundations from across the country
have instigated lawsuits to REMOVE a cross from a teacher's
memorial on Public School Grounds they didn't even see.
it was on principle alone.

Are you going to be fair here TheProgressivePatriot

If all designs are the same, and free speech does not matter,
whatever content you want, does this apply to Christians
who want to pray in public schools? If people NORMALLY
talk in groups at school, is group prayer a form of group talking and sharing?

Or do you and I have the right to REFUSE and ask to REMOVE
a FORM of group talking and sharing verbally that excludes
or conflicts on the basis of personal beliefs and choices?

If this example ISN'T close enough, can you exchange it for a better one
that explains the same point? Thank you TPP!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

f this is not clear, how about this explanation:
1. the state or businesses would be wrong if
they only allowed STRAIGHT/Heterosexual people to buy
cakes or get licenses for "SAME SEX weddings"
while not allowing SAME SEX couples or homosexual people
from these activities. That is discriminating against PEOPLE.
2. But if both gay and straight people and couples are
BOTH refused "same sex marriage licenses"
or if a business denies this type of design or
declines to participate in a same sex wedding
for EITHER gay or straight people, then that's
choosing not to engage in a certain activity, ritual or behavior.

Let me see if I can cut through the word salad here. No private business or government agency can be forced to provide goods or services to any one group, if it is not something that they do not normally provide in the course of business...See Simple!

Thank you TheProgressivePatriot
So the issue is the Christian bakers are saying
baking designing and serving GENERIC cakes are NOT THE SAME SERVICE
as designs and services for SAME SEX weddings.

Comparing back to the example of School prayer and policies.
To a Buddhist, or Unitarian, maybe it doesn't make a difference
if someone refers to NATURE as the source of life or GOD and CREATION.

But to an ATHEIST, if they want to SUE to remove references
to God and Prayer in Schools and Textbooks, the Govt cannot
force that choice on them!!!

The lawsuits don't even have to be from a person in that school.
Based on principle alone, foundations from across the country
have instigated lawsuits to REMOVE a cross from a teacher's
memorial on Public School Grounds they didn't even see.
it was on principle alone.

Are you going to be fair here TheProgressivePatriot

If all designs are the same, and free speech does not matter,
whatever content you want, does this apply to Christians
who want to pray in public schools? If people NORMALLY
talk in groups at school, is group prayer a form of group talking and sharing?

Or do you and I have the right to REFUSE and ask to REMOVE
a FORM of group talking and sharing verbally that excludes
or conflicts on the basis of personal beliefs and choices?

If this example ISN'T close enough, can you exchange it for a better one
that explains the same point? Thank you TPP!

Oh Christ..You don't get it!! Let me make a suggesting. In each of your posts, pick a single issue. In this one you cover public accommodation, school prayer, references to God in text books, public display of religious symbols, free speech and I don't know what else.

Please do this. Pick a topic. State your position on it clearly and concisely. Defend that position with facts, reason and logic. When you do that I will resume responding to you. ORGANIZE YOUR THOUGHTS!

 

[Slyhunter]

f this is not clear, how about this explanation:
1. the state or businesses would be wrong if
they only allowed STRAIGHT/Heterosexual people to buy
cakes or get licenses for "SAME SEX weddings"
while not allowing SAME SEX couples or homosexual people
from these activities. That is discriminating against PEOPLE.
2. But if both gay and straight people and couples are
BOTH refused "same sex marriage licenses"
or if a business denies this type of design or
declines to participate in a same sex wedding
for EITHER gay or straight people, then that's
choosing not to engage in a certain activity, ritual or behavior.

Let me see if I can cut through the word salad here. No private business or government agency can be forced to provide goods or services to any one group, if it is not something that they do not normally provide in the course of business...See Simple!

Thank you TheProgressivePatriot
So the issue is the Christian bakers are saying
baking designing and serving GENERIC cakes are NOT THE SAME SERVICE
as designs and services for SAME SEX weddings.

Comparing back to the example of School prayer and policies.
To a Buddhist, or Unitarian, maybe it doesn't make a difference
if someone refers to NATURE as the source of life or GOD and CREATION.

But to an ATHEIST, if they want to SUE to remove references
to God and Prayer in Schools and Textbooks, the Govt cannot
force that choice on them!!!

The lawsuits don't even have to be from a person in that school.
Based on principle alone, foundations from across the country
have instigated lawsuits to REMOVE a cross from a teacher's
memorial on Public School Grounds they didn't even see.
it was on principle alone.

Are you going to be fair here TheProgressivePatriot

If all designs are the same, and free speech does not matter,
whatever content you want, does this apply to Christians
who want to pray in public schools? If people NORMALLY
talk in groups at school, is group prayer a form of group talking and sharing?

Or do you and I have the right to REFUSE and ask to REMOVE
a FORM of group talking and sharing verbally that excludes
or conflicts on the basis of personal beliefs and choices?

If this example ISN'T close enough, can you exchange it for a better one
that explains the same point? Thank you TPP!

Oh Christ..You don't get it!! Let me make a suggesting. In each of your posts, pick a single issue. In this one you cover public accommodation, school prayer, references to God in text books, public display of religious symbols, free speech and I don't know what else.

Please do this. Pick a topic. State your position on it clearly and concisely. Defend that position with facts, reason and logic. When you do that I will resume responding to you. ORGANIZE YOUR THOUGHTS!

You need him to simplify it for you when it isn't simple.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

f this is not clear, how about this explanation:
1. the state or businesses would be wrong if
they only allowed STRAIGHT/Heterosexual people to buy
cakes or get licenses for "SAME SEX weddings"
while not allowing SAME SEX couples or homosexual people
from these activities. That is discriminating against PEOPLE.
2. But if both gay and straight people and couples are
BOTH refused "same sex marriage licenses"
or if a business denies this type of design or
declines to participate in a same sex wedding
for EITHER gay or straight people, then that's
choosing not to engage in a certain activity, ritual or behavior.

Let me see if I can cut through the word salad here. No private business or government agency can be forced to provide goods or services to any one group, if it is not something that they do not normally provide in the course of business...See Simple!

Thank you TheProgressivePatriot
So the issue is the Christian bakers are saying
baking designing and serving GENERIC cakes are NOT THE SAME SERVICE
as designs and services for SAME SEX weddings.

Comparing back to the example of School prayer and policies.
To a Buddhist, or Unitarian, maybe it doesn't make a difference
if someone refers to NATURE as the source of life or GOD and CREATION.

But to an ATHEIST, if they want to SUE to remove references
to God and Prayer in Schools and Textbooks, the Govt cannot
force that choice on them!!!

The lawsuits don't even have to be from a person in that school.
Based on principle alone, foundations from across the country
have instigated lawsuits to REMOVE a cross from a teacher's
memorial on Public School Grounds they didn't even see.
it was on principle alone.

Are you going to be fair here TheProgressivePatriot

If all designs are the same, and free speech does not matter,
whatever content you want, does this apply to Christians
who want to pray in public schools? If people NORMALLY
talk in groups at school, is group prayer a form of group talking and sharing?

Or do you and I have the right to REFUSE and ask to REMOVE
a FORM of group talking and sharing verbally that excludes
or conflicts on the basis of personal beliefs and choices?

If this example ISN'T close enough, can you exchange it for a better one
that explains the same point? Thank you TPP!

Oh Christ..You don't get it!! Let me make a suggesting. In each of your posts, pick a single issue. In this one you cover public accommodation, school prayer, references to God in text books, public display of religious symbols, free speech and I don't know what else.

Please do this. Pick a topic. State your position on it clearly and concisely. Defend that position with facts, reason and logic. When you do that I will resume responding to you. ORGANIZE YOUR THOUGHTS!

You need him to simplify it for you when it isn't simple.

I didn't say that the topic was simple. I am saying that the presentation is jumbled and incoherent to the point of not being able to ascertain what the poster is trying to say. Maybe you would like to try to respond to it.

 

[emilynghiem]

2. But if both gay and straight people and couples are
BOTH refused "same sex marriage licenses"
or if a business denies this type of design or
declines to participate in a same sex wedding
for EITHER gay or straight people, then that's
choosing not to engage in a certain activity, ritual or behavior.

Wait now WHAT??!! That makes no sense! Are straight people going to order a "gay cake" whatever the hell that is?

That's called distinguishing between
* the people as the Customers
* the content of the design, services or activities being hired out

If a business doesn't want to print prolife messages
but is okay with prochoice, that's up to the business.

So maybe only Christians or Prolife groups would ask for prolife printing.
It's the message being printed that the business
declines. TheProgressivePatriot
not the customer per se but the content.

But yes as I said before, it is unlawful to discriminate instead
of accommodate the people based on their beliefs.

We just can't cross the line into forcing activities or speech
on people that violates freedom of speech or free choice/exercise of beliefs.
Same goes for both sides.

 

[emilynghiem]

f this is not clear, how about this explanation:
1. the state or businesses would be wrong if
they only allowed STRAIGHT/Heterosexual people to buy
cakes or get licenses for "SAME SEX weddings"
while not allowing SAME SEX couples or homosexual people
from these activities. That is discriminating against PEOPLE.
2. But if both gay and straight people and couples are
BOTH refused "same sex marriage licenses"
or if a business denies this type of design or
declines to participate in a same sex wedding
for EITHER gay or straight people, then that's
choosing not to engage in a certain activity, ritual or behavior.

Let me see if I can cut through the word salad here. No private business or government agency can be forced to provide goods or services to any one group, if it is not something that they do not normally provide in the course of business...See Simple!

Thank you TheProgressivePatriot
So the issue is the Christian bakers are saying
baking designing and serving GENERIC cakes are NOT THE SAME SERVICE
as designs and services for SAME SEX weddings.

Comparing back to the example of School prayer and policies.
To a Buddhist, or Unitarian, maybe it doesn't make a difference
if someone refers to NATURE as the source of life or GOD and CREATION.

But to an ATHEIST, if they want to SUE to remove references
to God and Prayer in Schools and Textbooks, the Govt cannot
force that choice on them!!!

The lawsuits don't even have to be from a person in that school.
Based on principle alone, foundations from across the country
have instigated lawsuits to REMOVE a cross from a teacher's
memorial on Public School Grounds they didn't even see.
it was on principle alone.

Are you going to be fair here TheProgressivePatriot

If all designs are the same, and free speech does not matter,
whatever content you want, does this apply to Christians
who want to pray in public schools? If people NORMALLY
talk in groups at school, is group prayer a form of group talking and sharing?

Or do you and I have the right to REFUSE and ask to REMOVE
a FORM of group talking and sharing verbally that excludes
or conflicts on the basis of personal beliefs and choices?

If this example ISN'T close enough, can you exchange it for a better one
that explains the same point? Thank you TPP!

Oh Christ..You don't get it!! Let me make a suggesting. In each of your posts, pick a single issue. In this one you cover public accommodation, school prayer, references to God in text books, public display of religious symbols, free speech and I don't know what else.

Please do this. Pick a topic. State your position on it clearly and concisely. Defend that position with facts, reason and logic. When you do that I will resume responding to you. ORGANIZE YOUR THOUGHTS!

Hi TheProgressivePatriot
I did organize a list here:
Gods Own Party Can’t Get Over Same Sex Marriage

Can we please take this one by one?
Which point A B or C
do you want to start with?

Lysistrata can you also pick which points
are causing the core problem and which
can explain or point toward a solution?

 

[bodecea]

In the case of the Business, the owners apply the same standard and
refuse to design or participate in any activity or message that conflicts with their beliefs against same sex marriage,
whether the customers is gay, straight, bi, cis, trans or whatever.

They refuse ALL people because they don't believe in THAT activity for them.
So that is choosing not to engage in BEHAVIOR and is not about the people.

More nonsense. A wedding cake is a wedding cake. The only difference is that the names may show that it is for two people of the same gender, and if that assails the bakers sensibilities, they should go into another line of work

Having two males on it instead of a male and a female.

Not all wedding cakes have figures on top....in all the weddings I've been to, I have yet to see that.

 

[Lysistrata]

f this is not clear, how about this explanation:
1. the state or businesses would be wrong if
they only allowed STRAIGHT/Heterosexual people to buy
cakes or get licenses for "SAME SEX weddings"
while not allowing SAME SEX couples or homosexual people
from these activities. That is discriminating against PEOPLE.
2. But if both gay and straight people and couples are
BOTH refused "same sex marriage licenses"
or if a business denies this type of design or
declines to participate in a same sex wedding
for EITHER gay or straight people, then that's
choosing not to engage in a certain activity, ritual or behavior.

Let me see if I can cut through the word salad here. No private business or government agency can be forced to provide goods or services to any one group, if it is not something that they do not normally provide in the course of business...See Simple!

Thank you TheProgressivePatriot
So the issue is the Christian bakers are saying
baking designing and serving GENERIC cakes are NOT THE SAME SERVICE
as designs and services for SAME SEX weddings.

Comparing back to the example of School prayer and policies.
To a Buddhist, or Unitarian, maybe it doesn't make a difference
if someone refers to NATURE as the source of life or GOD and CREATION.

But to an ATHEIST, if they want to SUE to remove references
to God and Prayer in Schools and Textbooks, the Govt cannot
force that choice on them!!!

The lawsuits don't even have to be from a person in that school.
Based on principle alone, foundations from across the country
have instigated lawsuits to REMOVE a cross from a teacher's
memorial on Public School Grounds they didn't even see.
it was on principle alone.

Are you going to be fair here TheProgressivePatriot

If all designs are the same, and free speech does not matter,
whatever content you want, does this apply to Christians
who want to pray in public schools? If people NORMALLY
talk in groups at school, is group prayer a form of group talking and sharing?

Or do you and I have the right to REFUSE and ask to REMOVE
a FORM of group talking and sharing verbally that excludes
or conflicts on the basis of personal beliefs and choices?

If this example ISN'T close enough, can you exchange it for a better one
that explains the same point? Thank you TPP!

Oh Christ..You don't get it!! Let me make a suggesting. In each of your posts, pick a single issue. In this one you cover public accommodation, school prayer, references to God in text books, public display of religious symbols, free speech and I don't know what else.

Please do this. Pick a topic. State your position on it clearly and concisely. Defend that position with facts, reason and logic. When you do that I will resume responding to you. ORGANIZE YOUR THOUGHTS!

Hi TheProgressivePatriot
I did organize a list here:
Gods Own Party Can’t Get Over Same Sex Marriage

Can we please take this one by one?
Which point A B or C
do you want to start with?

Lysistrata can you also pick which points
are causing the core problem and which
can explain or point toward a solution?

Your arguments are so convoluted that I wouldn't know where to begin, even if I wanted to.

 

[emilynghiem]

Okay Lysistrata TheProgressivePatriot
I get you are saying this STILL is not simplified or clarified
enough.
Can we do what Slyhunter referred to
Can I ask you TheProgressivePatriot to
take one or each of these points below A B C
and restate them to be simple enough points
for discussion and for Lysistrata to see as not convoluted/jumbled/disorganized:


A. First I said there are TWO issues of beliefs going on
1. beliefs about LGBT orientation/identity being
natural (not a choice) or unnatural behavior and choice
and/or something that cannot change or something that can
2. beliefs whether Govt has authority to decide
or defend this type of policy FOR others, or if
it falls under "free exercise of religion" for people to choose

These are TWO different layers of beliefs "stacked together."
What is worsening the confusion is FAILING to address
BOTH of these SEPARATELY. Or it's all jumbled together!!!

B. I also spelled out the DIFFERENCE between
1. discrimination against PEOPLE for their background identity beliefs affiliation etc.
2. discrimination against ACTIVITIES
And I compare it to refusing Christian PRAYER / the ACTIVITY
in public schools, while still allowing CHRISTIANS to practice and express their beliefs PERSONALLY (just not impose that ACTIVITY or EXPRESSION ON OTHERS who refuse or choose otherwise)

C. I spelled out examples of
1. separating Christian expression such as Crosses
and Prayers from public policy/institutions
by
a. making the property PRIVATE instead of public
b. making laws NEUTRAL such as Moments of Silence instead of group prayers
2. And I compared this with
a. keeping ALL MARRIAGE private instead of public
b. making laws NEUTRAL such as civil unions or partnership contracts
instead of any references to social relations between the people in a contract

Can you please restate and clarify the ISSUES here under A B C TheProgressivePatriot

Thank you, you will be doing ALL of us a favor
and I appreciate your sincerest effort, invaluable insights,
and mentorship through this communication/facilitation process!

 

[emilynghiem]

In the case of the Business, the owners apply the same standard and
refuse to design or participate in any activity or message that conflicts with their beliefs against same sex marriage,
whether the customers is gay, straight, bi, cis, trans or whatever.

They refuse ALL people because they don't believe in THAT activity for them.
So that is choosing not to engage in BEHAVIOR and is not about the people.

More nonsense. A wedding cake is a wedding cake. The only difference is that the names may show that it is for two people of the same gender, and if that assails the bakers sensibilities, they should go into another line of work

Having two males on it instead of a male and a female.

Not all wedding cakes have figures on top....in all the weddings I've been to, I have yet to see that.

Dear bodecea
Not all Christians or Christian prayers exclude people of other faiths or no faith. The Universalists and/or those who believe in universal salvation do NOT exclude atheists or gays, etc.

Yet Christian prayer is barred from schools as public institutions
to instigate as a group activity because of other people having free choice and freedom from govt institutions establishing a faith based belief or practice they don't believe in.

Are you going to say it's okay to have a Christian prayer in school as long as it doesn't use words or symbols that exclude or offend other beliefs?

Or just keep it a free private choice of individuals, and don't force ANY Christian prayer on ANYONE who doesn't believe or agree, even though some Christian prayers don't contain offensive exclusive language but include all people anyway.

If you are going to nitpick and make exceptions for one,
would you make exceptions about the other???

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Hi TheProgressivePatriot
I did organize a list here:
Gods Own Party Can’t Get Over Same Sex Marriage

Can we please take this one by one?
Which point A B or C
do you want to start with?

Progress perhaps but not there yet. "A" for instance jumbles together the issue of why people are gay , religion and the role of government Try sticking with A1 What do you believe about why people are gay , and why? Alternately, you might want to address why it matters and how to manage alternative viewpoints, if in fact that is necessary

A. First I said there are TWO issues of beliefs going on
1. beliefs about LGBT orientation/identity being
natural (not a choice) or unnatural behavior and choice
and/or something that cannot change or something that can

A2 makes little to no sense. What policy? A policy that states that people are born gay
vs. a choice. Not happening. and no point in even bringing it up. Government policy decides how people are treated by the government and how we are allowed to treat each other. End of story

Free exercise of religion? Yes some people's views of gays and even why they are gay are shaped by religious beliefs. That is no body's problem but their own They are free to believe what they will. Again, the concern is how people are treated. Stick with A1 and lets see if you can stay focused,

2. beliefs whether Govt has authority to decide
or defend this type of policy FOR others, or if
it falls under "free exercise of religion" for people to choose

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi TheProgressivePatriot
I did organize a list here:
Gods Own Party Can’t Get Over Same Sex Marriage

Can we please take this one by one?
Which point A B or C
do you want to start with?

Progress perhaps but not there yet. "A" for instance jumbles together the issue of why people are gay , religion and the role of government Try sticking with A1 What do you believe about why people are gay , and why? Alternately, you might want to address why it matters and how to manage alternative viewpoints, if in fact that is necessary

A. First I said there are TWO issues of beliefs going on
1. beliefs about LGBT orientation/identity being
natural (not a choice) or unnatural behavior and choice
and/or something that cannot change or something that can

A2 makes little to no sense. What policy? A policy that states that people are born gay
vs. a choice. Not happening. and no point in even bringing it up. Government policy decides how people are treated by the government and how we are allowed to treat each other. End of story

Free exercise of religion? Yes some people's views of gays and even why they are gay are shaped by religious beliefs. That is no body's problem but their own They are free to believe what they will. Again, the concern is how people are treated. Stick with A1 and lets see if you can stay focused,

2. beliefs whether Govt has authority to decide
or defend this type of policy FOR others, or if
it falls under "free exercise of religion" for people to choose

Very good and well clarified TheProgressivePatriot

A1. The reason I believe that both sides are right IN SOME CASES with their beliefs
a. I know some people for whom being gay or transgender is natural for them and is who they are spiritually
b. I know some people and/or know of many others for whom being gay or transgender turned out NOT to be natural for them, but causes unnaturally by abusive situations, and when they were healed of these conditions then they no longer experienced or identified with gay or transgender but report being naturally heterosexual/cisgender

I see this as a spiritual process path or identity in life for people.
So that's why I respect people's views or beliefs on both sides as RIGHT for THOSE people or cases it applies to, but not for the cases it conflicts with.

A2. I also find people of BOTH beliefs
a. People who believe in limited govt, where govt is restricted to JUST the 18 enumerated duties in the body of the Constitution proper, and is NOT authorized to regulate or abridge individual rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Example: The Veteran Party of America states their political belief in their party platform statement that "all social legislation is unconstitutional"
b. People who believe that govt is the central authority for establishing the collective will of the people and promoting the general welfare, as their political belief.

Because I am a Constitutionalist who believes in isonomy or equal political power for all individuals, I believe under free exercise of religion and equal protection of laws, then I must include protect and respect the Political Beliefs of each person or group equally as any other Religious belief. Any personal belief is equal regardless of affiliation with a larger group or not.
I believe each person and group member has equal right to Consent or Dissent, by freedom of choice/civil liberties/free exercise of religion, so that laws and social contracts are based on informed consent of the governed, and respect equal protections and due process for all persons.
Especially when it comes to BELIEFS, people have a right to consent to how laws are written, interpreted or carried out so that all beliefs are equally protected and represented.

That's my general statement.
are you okay with that so far TheProgressivePatriot

In general I seek to treat people like you with your beliefs about LGBT
equally as people with beliefs about Christianity; and try to respect your CONSENT as to what you believe and don't believe.

Then for any conflict between people of different beliefs,
I try to separate the issues, one by one, come up with a solution
that BOTH sides AGREE to, in order to quit imposing on each other.

I do this by respecting your free choice to believe and/or only to change if you agree to some better choice, but not by insulting what you believe or trying to force you by law to change it, because no person agrees to be forced.

The other person can be completely wrong in their beliefs or approach,
and/or in how they communicate ineffectively by attacking others,
and I still respect their free choice if anything is going to change.

I don't agree with such people imposing on you or others,
but the only change I've ever seen effectively when it comes to
personal or political beliefs is by equal respect and free choice.

So I tend to take the position in A2 of
NOT relying on Govt to force people to change beliefs,
but working on this as a personal spiritual process
where free choice is respected on all sides without attacking anyone
for their beliefs.

I find the spiritual process works first, then the political process follows.
By free will/free choice, not by force which backfires because nobody wants when this force of law is applied to them.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

A1. The reason I believe that both sides are right IN SOME CASES with their beliefs
a. I know some people for whom being gay or transgender is natural for them and is who they are spiritually
b. I know some people and/or know of many others for whom being gay or transgender turned out NOT to be natural for them, but causes unnaturally by abusive situations, and when they were healed of these conditions then they no longer experienced or identified with gay or transgender but report being naturally heterosexual/cisgender

OK, thank you. I think that what it comes down to is that some people are more comfortable with their sexuality and gender identity. And, those who are less comfortable with it should receive appropriate guidance and support in order to help them find their way but not to point them in any particular direction.

I don't know what your experience is with people who suffered trauma is, but I need to be convinced that any substantial number- at for that matter any at all, became gay or trans as a result. In any case you need to make a clearer distinction between healing from any trauma a person might have suffered, healing in relation to sexuality, the latter of which I have a problem with because it assigns a disease model to their sexuality