If Christians are allowed to discriminate against gays ...

[Defiant1]

... then gays should be allowed to discriminate against Christians.

Agree or Disagree?

I agree.

Please, please let this happen.
I long for the day businesses identify themselves.
I promise I won't do business with a company owned by gays.
I promise not to sit at a table, get in a checkout line, get a caked decorated by, a gay worker.
I promise not to associate with any gay people.
Just identify yourselves.

Same would go for liberals.

And Christian bigots!

I'm not a Christian.

 

[Pop23]

... then gays should be allowed to discriminate against Christians.

Agree or Disagree?

I agree.

Please, please let this happen.
I long for the day businesses identify themselves.
I promise I won't do business with a company owned by gays.
I promise not to sit at a table, get in a checkout line, get a caked decorated by, a gay worker.
I promise not to associate with any gay people.
Just identify yourselves.

Same would go for liberals.

And Christian bigots!

I'm not a Christian.

Neither am I, and I find it interesting that those that I debate this issue with assume I am or must be?

 

[dblack]

... then gays should be allowed to discriminate against Christians.

Agree or Disagree?

I agree.

Please, please let this happen.
I long for the day businesses identify themselves.
I promise I won't do business with a company owned by gays.
I promise not to sit at a table, get in a checkout line, get a caked decorated by, a gay worker.
I promise not to associate with any gay people.
Just identify yourselves.

Same would go for liberals.

And Christian bigots!

I'm not a Christian.

I didn't say you were.

 

[Defiant1]

... then gays should be allowed to discriminate against Christians.

Agree or Disagree?

I agree.

Please, please let this happen.
I long for the day businesses identify themselves.
I promise I won't do business with a company owned by gays.
I promise not to sit at a table, get in a checkout line, get a caked decorated by, a gay worker.
I promise not to associate with any gay people.
Just identify yourselves.

Same would go for liberals.

And Christian bigots!

I'm not a Christian.

Neither am I, and I find it interesting that those that I debate this issue with assume I am or must be?

I know how you feel.

That's why I'm lukewarm re: the SCOTUS baker decision.
Why should religious people be the only ones to exercise there inalienable right to discriminate?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Did that make sense in your head? It didn't translate.

Sure did.

Homosexuality is composed of two of the same sex

Unless the donor was a chick, the process was that of opposite sexes.

So? There was still zero heterosexuality that went into the making of our children. None.

Heterosexuality is the combining of male to female components. The male may be gay, but he is used in a way not of his sexuality.

No, you just described procreation. Procreation does not require sex therefore does not require heterosexuality.

Heterosexuality is not required for parenting or procrastination. I'm sorry if this somehow makes you feel less of a man, but that's your problem.

I'm sorry no one ever taught you the Birds and the Bee's. Procreation always require a certain amount of interaction between the two sexes.

That is not debatable.

And you point in relation to the issue of discrimination is what EXACTLY?

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The Left's selective outrage undermines their credibility.
Gay wedding cakes are really not about the Left's principles. it's about their loathing of Christians

 

[Pop23]

... then gays should be allowed to discriminate against Christians.

Agree or Disagree?

I agree.

Please, please let this happen.
I long for the day businesses identify themselves.
I promise I won't do business with a company owned by gays.
I promise not to sit at a table, get in a checkout line, get a caked decorated by, a gay worker.
I promise not to associate with any gay people.
Just identify yourselves.

Same would go for liberals.

And Christian bigots!

I'm not a Christian.

Neither am I, and I find it interesting that those that I debate this issue with assume I am or must be?

I know how you feel.

That's why I'm lukewarm re: the SCOTUS baker decision.
Why should religious people be the only ones to exercise there inalienable right to discriminate?

I don't have to be a Christian to have empathy with someone who believes that baking the cake will damn him to eternity in the flames of hell (I can't come to grips with how horrible that idea would be to someone with that belief). Is the profit worth the cost?

The point is that Government should not be participating in a law, Marriage, with religious overtones in the first place. There are far better solutions.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

There are straight couples who can never get pregnant, no matter what they do.

All I am saying is that the best interest of the child is a poor argument. Don't take this as an attack.

True. I’ve never denied it. But what you describe is fertility issues or a reproductive disability.

I am as repulsed at the use of the reproductively disabled to justify anything as I am at using anyone’s disability to justify anything.

Not saying you did that, just clarifying my position.

That does not clarify anything except to bring into sharper focus, the fact that you are too much of a coward and too dishonest to provide a clear and concise answer to the question of how gay couples who have children should be treated as a matter of public policy- knowing that discrimination against them harms their children . I am not letting go of that until you answer.

The whole issue of reproduction and it's relation to gay rights has been litigated into the ground and long since laid to rest. The fact that you are blathering about it now just confirms your ignorance of the issue and your desperate need to disparage and marginalize gay people . Here is something that I compiled a while ago. Enjoy and then shut up

The Desperation of the Procreation Argument Against Equality. By Progressive Patriot 6.15.14

In a recent exchange on another thread concerning same sex marriage, I encountered several participants who insisted that the “fact” that same sex couples do not procreate (in the “normal” way) is a valid reason to deny gays the right to marry. As proof, they would dredge up old court cases and sift through them to find a statement by a judge, plaintiff or lawyer that supports that view point. True, in some old cases, that argument was used successfully. In other cases, it emerged only as a dissenting opinion on appeal. In still other cases, it was presented as an argument by those opposing marriage equality but it did not prevail. One desperate fellow, after asserting that the procreation argument was used “successfully in up to 150 cases”, (but with no documentation to back that up) offered the six examples below that supposedly support that claim. In that little information was provided by him, and again with no documentation, it was necessary to do the research myself. My finding bear out what I suspected; the reason for the sketchy information is the fact that the cases, for the most part are either too old to matter, were overturned, or superseded by subsequent proceedings or legislation. They simply do not support the assertion that the courts are generally supportive of the procreation argument. If these are the best examples of courts being supportive of what has become known as “responsible procreation” the argument is already over. Here are the cases: (I remind you, only the names were provided to me. The text below is excerpted from those cases after being researched by me)

Washington State: Singer v Hara In 1971 in Seattle, in one of the first same-sex marriage lawsuits in the U.S., gay activists John Singer and Paul Barwick requested a marriage license from the King County auditor, Lloyd Hara, to demonstrate the inequality between gay and heterosexual couples Hara refused, and Singer and Barwick brought suit on the grounds that the denial violated the Equal Rights Amendment of the state constitution. The Washington Court of Appeals denied the claim in 1974 in Singer v. Hara. The Washington Supreme Court refused to review the Court of Appeals' decision. Yes, the court did cite “procreation” in ruling against plaintiffs, but that case was 42 years ago!! Since that time same sex marriage has been passed in the legislature and signed by the governor. Although implementation was blocked by petition, it subsequently passed by referendum with 66% of the popular vote. Source:

http://www.leagle.com/decision/197425811WnApp247_1228

I will add that no one is talking about the ability to reproduce any longer in the state of Washington anymore. Here are 2 other much more recent cases from that state, cases which were “overlooked” by those pushing “responsible procreation”. You will see that in one case, Andersen v. Sims the court ruled that a law limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples violated sections of the constitution that required due process and equal protection of the laws. In another, Castle v. State, the court said the state marriage laws violated the equal protection of privileges and immunities clause of the state constitution. There is no information that the opposition cited “reproduction” as an issue, but if they did it obviously did not prevail at trial. And while those rulings were later reversed by the state Supreme Court in 2006 (Andersen v. King County) on the basis that banning same-sex marriage is constitutional since the legislature could reasonably believe it furthers the government interest in promoting procreation, (hay this is one that the pro-procreation guys could have actually used, but missed it) as we now know, the people of Washington State as well as the lawmakers disagreed.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singer_...Singer_v._Hara

Colorado :Adams v Howerton 673 F.2d 1036 (9th Cir. 1982) is a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that held that the term "spouse" refers to an opposite-sex partner for the purposes of immigration law and that this definition meets rational basis review. It was the first U.S. lawsuit to seek recognition of a same-sex marriage by the federal government. On appeal, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's opinion on alternative grounds on February 25, 1982. They decided that it was unnecessary for them to determine if the Adams-Sullivan union qualified as a marriage under Colorado law. In reviewing the constitutionality of the law, they rejected the plaintiffs' claim that strict scrutiny was required, on the grounds that "Congress has almost plenary power to admit or exclude aliens". They held that "Congress's decision to confer spouse status under section 201(b) only upon the parties to heterosexual marriages has a rational basis and therefore comports with the due process clause and its equal protection requirements.

The court held that "Congress's decision to confer spouse status under section 201(b) only upon the parties to heterosexual marriages has a rational basis and therefore comports with the due process clause and its equal protection requirements. They found it unnecessary to determine if Congress's justification "is because homosexual marriages never produce offspring, because they are not recognized in most, if in any, of the states, or because they violate traditional and often prevailing societal mores.

Source: http://www.ask.com/wiki/Adams_v._How...apn&ap=ask.com

The court DID NOT make a determination on the question of reproduction, yet the case is cited as one that purportedly holds that reproduction is central to marriage. In addition, that was 31 years ago. At present, some 51 % of residents support same sex marriage in that state, (70% among those under 30) Civil union are allowed, and a campaign to overturn Colorado's ban on same sex marriage is on hold as backers wait to see the results of a federal ruling overturning a similar ban in Utah.

Source: http://www.dailycamera.com/state-wes...h-other-states

In addition, Colorado House Speaker Mark Ferrandino (D-Denver), who became the state's first openly gay man to hold the title in the Legislature earlier in 2013, said after the DOMA ruling that LGBT-rights groups led by One Colorado are in the process of putting together a plan to repeal the ban on same-sex marriage in the state. And no one is talking about the ability to reproduce.

I hope readers are remembering that these case names, and only the names, were provided to me by someone who opposes same sex marriage on the issue of reproduction, because each case touched on the issue of reproduction. It seems to matter little what exactly was said about reproduction, the age of the case, or subsequent action on the issue.

Hawaii: Baehr v Lewin 1993 Same-sex marriage activists scored their first major victory in 1993, in the Hawaii case of Baehr v. Lewin. Nina Baehr sued the state of Hawaii, alleging that the state's refusal to issue her and her same-sex partner a marriage license amounted to illegal discrimination. The Hawaii Supreme Court said her case had merit. The Court ruled that the state's prohibition of same-sex marriages amounted to discrimination on the basis of sex. Under the state's Equal Rights Amendment, the state would have to establish a compelling state interest supporting such a ban, a fairly strict standard. Although the court did not directly rule that the state's prohibition of same-sex marriages was illegal, it left little doubt of its skepticism regarding the proposition. The court remanded the case to a lower court to determine whether the state could prove this compelling state interest in prohibiting same-sex marriage. For the first time, a state Supreme Court had ruled that gay couples might have the right to marry. - See more at: http://family.findlaw.com/marriage/1....ZMkAW6pk.dpuf

In the decision to remand the case back to the lower court, the state supreme court noted that article I, section 6 of the Hawaii Constitution expressly states that "the right of the people to privacy is recognized and shall not be infringed without the showing of a compelling state interest." The framers of the Hawaii Constitution declared that the "privacy concept" embodied in article I, section 6 is to be "treated as a fundamental right. And, “It is not surprising that the decision to marry has been placed on the same level of importance as decisions relating to procreation, childbirth, child rearing, and family relationships.” On remand, in accordance with the "strict scrutiny" standard, stated that the burden will rest on Lewin ( The State) to overcome the presumption that HRS @ 572-1 is unconstitutional by demonstrating that it furthers compelling state interests and is narrowly drawn to avoid unnecessary abridgments of constitutional rights.

Vacated and remanded. http://nortonsafe.search.ask.com/web...=en_US&tpr=111

It appears that the only reference to procreation is in the passage of the constitution which states that marriage is equally as important as procreation, not that procreation is a condition of marriage. Notice that in this ruling, the burden of proof was placed squarely on the state to prove that the ban on same sex marriage is constitutional. Opponents of marriage equality will often claim that the burden of proof is on those who wish to lift the ban. In any case, On November 13, 2013, Hawaii became the sixteenth jurisdiction in the United States (15 states, plus the District of Columbia) to extend the freedom to marry to same-sex couples when Gov. Neil Abercrombie signed the freedom to marry into law. The marriage bill had been approved by the Hawaii Senate and House earlier in November. This is yet another irrelevant and antiquated case http://www.freedomtomarry.org/states/entry/c/hawaii

Baker v Vermont 1999: was a lawsuit decided by Vermont Supreme Court on December 20, 1999. It was one of the first judicial affirmations of the right of same-sex couples to treatment equivalent to that afforded different-sex couples. The unanimous decision held that the state's prohibition on same-sex marriage denied rights granted by the Vermont Constitution. The court ordered the Vermont legislature to either allow same-sex marriages or implement an alternative legal mechanism according similar rights to same-sex couples.

The case began when On July 22, 1997, three same-sex couples, who had been denied marriage licenses in the towns of Milton and Shelburne and the city of South Burlington, sued those jurisdictions and the state. Superior Court Judge Linda Levitt granted the defendants' motion (to dismiss) , ruling that the marriage statutes could not be construed to allow same-sex marriages and that the statutes were constitutional because they served the public interest by promoting "the link between procreation and child rearing" An appeal resulted In a unanimous ruling on December 20, 19 99.The Vermont Supreme Court ruled that the state must guarantee the very same protections and benefits to same-sex couples that it does to male-female spouses. It held that excluding same-sex couples from the benefits associated with marriage violated the state constitution, and said that the legislature should, in a "reasonable period of time", find a way to provide same-sex couples with those benefits. It found that the state's policy did not serve such an "overriding public interest", rejecting the argument that same-sex marriages would do harm by weakening the link between marriage and child rearing and finding no administrative or pragmatic difficulty with extending the rights of marriage to same-sex couples. The court dismissed the remaining arguments, such as those concerning the "stability" of same-sex couples, as too nebulous or speculative to justify a policy with respect to all same-sex couples and equally applicable to some male-female partnerships. There was no further mention of procreation.

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Baker_v._Ver...apn&ap=ask.com
In July 2007, Vermont became the 4th state to legalize same sex marriage, and the first by legislation, after the legislature overrode a gubernatorial veto. Again, there is no current relevance to what one lower court judge said 17 years ago which was ignored by the Supreme court and forgotten by everyone.

Massachusetts: Goodridge v Department of Public Health 2003 was a landmark state appellate court case dealing with same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. The November 18, 2003, decision was the first by a U.S. state's highest court to find that same-sex couples had the right to marry. The court affirmed that it owes "great deference to the Legislature to decide social and policy issues." Where, as here, the constitutionality of a law is challenged, it is the "traditional and settled role" of courts to decide the constitutional question. The "marriage ban" the court held, "works a deep and scarring hardship" on same-sex families "for no rational reason." It prevents children of same-sex couples "from enjoying the immeasurable advantages that flow from the assurance of 'a stable family structure in which children will be reared, educated, and socialized."' "It cannot be rational under our laws," the court held, "to penalize children by depriving them of State benefits" because of their parents' sexual orientation.

The court rejected the Commonwealth's claim that the primary purpose of marriage was procreation. Rather, the history of the marriage laws in the Commonwealth demonstrates that "it is the exclusive and permanent commitment of the marriage partners to one another, not the begetting of children, that is the sine qua non of marriage."

http://nortonsafe.search.ask.com/web...=en_US&tpr=111

The above appellate court case stems from a lower court case that began On April 11, 2001, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) sued the Massachusetts Department of Health in Superior Court on behalf of seven same-sex couples, all residents of Massachusetts, who had been denied marriage licenses in March and April 2001. After holding a hearing in March 2002, Superior Court Judge Thomas Connolly ruled in favor of the Department of Health stating that Recognizing that procreation is marriage's central purpose, it is rational for the legislature to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples who, theoretically, are capable of procreation. Moreover, because same-sex couples are unable to procreate on their own and therefore must rely on inherently more cumbersome means of having children, it is also rational to assume that same-sex couples are less likely to have children or, at least, to have as many children as opposite-sex couples.”

This quote is apparently the basis for the assertion that this case represents additional proof that the courts have consistently held that procreation is a cornerstone of marriage while disregarding the resounding rebuff of that viewpoint by the Supreme Court Same sex marriage is now legal in Massachusetts.

Arizona: Standhardt v Superior Court This is a complicated case with many facets. Harold Donald Standhardt and Tod Alan Keltner, two men in a committed relationship, applied to the Clerk of the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County, for a marriage license. The Clerk denied the application based on state law which, prohibit marriages between persons of the same sex and define a valid marriage as one between a man and a woman.1 They then petitioned this court to both compel the Clerk to issue them a marriage license. Unlike most other cases the issue of procreation was not simply mentioned but appears to have been a central part of the case. So much so that Justices’ remarks it seem to be the source of nearly all of the talking points used by those who insist that it is a valid reason for denying same sex couples the right to marry. From the court by paragraph:

33. The State contends it has a legitimate interest in encouraging procreation and child-rearing within the stable environment traditionally associated with marriage, and that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples is rationally related to that interest. Because the State's interest in committed sexual relationships is limited to those capable of producing children, it contends it reasonably restricts marriage to opposite-sex couples.

36. Allowing all opposite-sex couples to enter marriage under Arizona law, regardless of their willingness or ability to procreate, does not defeat the reasonableness of the link between opposite-sex marriage, procreation, and child-rearing.   First, if the State excluded opposite-sex couples from marriage based on their intention or ability to procreate, the State would have to inquire about that subject before issuing a license, thereby implicating constitutionally rooted privacy concerns.  

37. For these reasons, the State's decision to permit all qualified opposite-sex couples to marry does not defeat the reasonableness of the link between opposite-sex marriage, procreation, and child-rearing

38 Likewise, although some same-sex couples also raise children, exclusion of these couples from the marriage relationship does not defeat the reasonableness of the link between opposite-sex marriage, procreation, and child-rearing.   Indisputably, the only sexual relationship capable of producing children is one between a man and a woman.  …….. Because same-sex couples cannot by themselves procreate, the State could also reasonably decide that sanctioning same-sex marriages would do little to advance the State's interest in ensuring responsible procreation within committed, long-term relationships. 
The case was lost by the petitioners, but keep in mind that that was 2003 before any state had legalized same sex marriage.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/az-court-...s/1346614.html

However, not long afterwards, Courts in Massachusetts, New York and Washington State wrote that such a state interest (procreation) no longer applies in a world of artificial insemination and adoption. Those courts also said procreation isn't threatened by same-sex marriage. I hope readers are keeping score.
http://legacy.utsandiego.com/news/st...ocreation.html

So far, the Arizona ruling seems to be the only one still standing and that may soon change
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...wsuit/4358305/ 2014 4 Couples file federal law suit challenging constitutional ban

Other relevant cases that have been “overlooked “ by those arguing against marriage equality

Oklahoma: Senior U.S. District Judge Terrence C. Kern, ruling more than nine years after Oklahoma voters overwhelmingly approved a statewide question to prohibit same-sex marriage, said the ban discriminated against same-sex couples for no rational reason.
After dissecting the arguments supporters voiced to justify the ban, Kern said that “moral disapproval of homosexuals as a class, or same-sex marriage as a practice, is not a permissible justification.”

Moreover, he said, protecting the sanctity of marriage wasn't a valid reason for the ban, given Oklahoma's high divorce rate of opposite-sex couples, and encouraging procreation wasn't logical either since opposite-sex couples aren't required to say they'll produce offspring in order to get a marriage license. “Equal protection is at the very heart of our legal system and central to our consent to be governed,” Kern said in his 68-page decision.

Utah: A federal judge in Utah last month struck down that state's ban on gay marriage — passed in 2004, the same year as Oklahoma's — and the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed to hear an appeal from Utah on a fast track. In this case, the states vehemently argued that reproduction was central to marriage but that view was not accepted by the court. Oklahoma is in the same federal circuit as Utah, and Holladay said he hopes the two cases are combined. The U.S. Supreme Court last week put gay marriages on hold in Utah while the appeals court hears the case, but U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said the marriages that already had occurred would be recognized by the federal government.

http://newsok.com/federal-judge-stri...rticle/3923855
December 19, 2013|3:48 pm

New Mexico: Claiming that "same-gender couples are as capable of responsible procreation as are opposite-gender couples," the N.M. Supreme Court found on Thursday that gay marriage is legal under the New Mexico Constitution.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/nm...ildren-111188/

Oregon: “Federal Judge Eviscerates Oregon’s Ban On Same-Sex Marriage” The first possible objective of Measure 36 (Ban on same sex marriage) is to encourage responsible procreation. Preventing same-sex couples from marrying, however, will have no effect on the procreation of opposite-sex couples in Oregon. Further, same-sex couples can and do procreate — through adoptions, surrogates, and artificial insemination. Denying same-sex couples the status of marriage will not discourage their procreation. Instead, it will lead to children being born out of wedlock to these couples. Thus, excluding same-sex couples from the institution of marriage is not rationally related to the promotion of responsible procreation. http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/0...-sex-marriage/

New Jersey: New Jersey judge ruled that the state must allow same-sex couples to marry, saying that not doing so deprives them of rights that were guaranteed by the United States Supreme Court in June. It is the first time a court has struck down a state’s refusal to legalize same-sex marriage as a direct result of the Supreme Court ruling, and with lawsuits pending in other states, it could presage other successful challenges across the country. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/28/ny...-marriage.html

Interestingly, it appears that while the state, in arguing against the right to marry relied on an appeal to tradition argument, procreation was never raised. Thus, it was unnecessary for the court to address that issue. That issue is in fact dead.
Lastly, in the recent Supreme Court case that overturned the Defense of Marriage Act, there was not mention of procreation, and the argument that federal benefits should not be extended to gay couples, in part due to the cost was shot down.

On the other hand, in the proposition 8 case, the attorney for the group suing to overturn the lower court’s ruling that the law is unconstitutional made extensive use of procreation as his argument. In that case, the SCOTUS determined that that group did not have standing and allowed to lower court ruling to stand, thereby killing proposition 8 and allowing gay marriage to continue. In addition the same attorney, arguing before SCOTUS to reinstate proposition 8, used the same procreation argument before the US District Court in Hollingsworth v. Perry and was rebuffed. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-144

At this point, it’s hard to believe that there are still anti equality advocates that cannot see that procreation as an argument is dead in the water and starting to small pretty bad.

And what is this “responsible procreation” Opponents of marriage equality have long argued that reserving marriage for opposite-sex couples is important for promoting “responsible procreation” in society. However the “responsible procreation” argument is no only flawed, but also how it’s actually used to sugarcoat prejudice against homosexuality. It is wrought with logical fallacies, and bizarre assumptions. One of it’s strangest assumptions is that if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, then different-sex couples will have more children out of wedlock. I’m still waiting for an explanation as to how that will actually work. “Another strange variation of the responsible procreation claim is that if a heterosexual couple cannot conceive, marriage still somehow discourages them from cheating on one another. As the proponents of California’s Proposition 8 argued to the U.S. Supreme Court, marriage “decreases the likelihood that a fertile spouse will engage in sexual activity with a third party.” What I’m getting from this is not so much opposition to same sex marriage, but the view that it is just not necessary.

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/1...gay-prejudice/

This seems to be another major source of anti-equality talking points. It seems to me that a truly rational discussion of marriage equality-one in which the focus is strictly on the compelling government at societal interest, for and against it, without all of the fluff is long over due

Wow. You need court proceedings to tell you you don’t and never will be able to procreate with your partner?

Fascinating

What is fascinating to me is that continue to cling to the issue of procreation even after I demonstrated that it is a legal dead end and has nothing to do with the rights or status of gay people.

And you cling to the idea that the law does not apply to biological reality.

I clearly demonstrated that the law is not concerned about the biology of procreation in relation to gay rights and marriage. Get over it!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Why should religious people be the only ones to exercise there inalienable right to discriminate?

Yes of course. Those alt-right people and neo Nazis should be allowed to discriminate against Jews and Blacks-right? MAGA !

 

[Defiant1]

Why should religious people be the only ones to exercise there inalienable right to discriminate?

Yes of course. Those alt-right people and neo Nazis should be allowed to discriminate against Jews and Blacks-right? MAGA !

Of course. The government shouldn't involve themselves in private associations and transactions.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yes of course. Those alt-right people and neo Nazis should be allowed to discriminate against Jews and Blacks-right? MAGA !

And we should be free to discriminate against those toothless idiots.

But, don't sit there and act like you don't discriminate. Please tell me you are not wallowing in your own self-righteousness.

 

[Silhouette]

The government shouldn't involve themselves in private associations and transactions.

Unless it's a violation of the Civil Rights Act re: discrimination. Gay sex lifestyles do not qualify for that coverage BTW because they aren't allowed to "bootstrap" behaviors onto the word "gender".

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Unless it's a violation of the Civil Rights Act re: discrimination. Gay sex lifestyles do not qualify for that coverage BTW because they aren't allowed to "bootstrap" behaviors onto the word "gender".

So, government should be involved in private associations?

 

[dblack]

Unless it's a violation of the Civil Rights Act re: discrimination. Gay sex lifestyles do not qualify for that coverage BTW because they aren't allowed to "bootstrap" behaviors onto the word "gender".

So, government should be involved in private associations?

Only if it's 'innate' or some shit like that.

 

[Silhouette]

Unless it's a violation of the Civil Rights Act re: discrimination. Gay sex lifestyles do not qualify for that coverage BTW because they aren't allowed to "bootstrap" behaviors onto the word "gender".

So, government should be involved in private associations?

In the marketplace as defined as "open to the general public" they should protect via the Civil Rights Act as to gender and race, because they are static conditions and cannot be helped and therefore cannot be punished. Gay lifestyles are "gender fluid" and opted for. They're behaviors . People cannot be required to condone offensive behaviors because if that was true, then ALL offensive behaviors (via equality remember) would be eligible for forced-condoning.

If calling oneself "innately gay since birth" (subjectively, lesbians often using dildos for stimulation..ahem…) can gain special protections in law, then calling oneself "innately a drug addict since birth" gets the same legal foothold. You cannot discriminate remember?

 

[Defiant1]

The government shouldn't involve themselves in private associations and transactions.

Unless it's a violation of the Civil Rights Act re: discrimination. Gay sex lifestyles do not qualify for that coverage BTW because they aren't allowed to "bootstrap" behaviors onto the word "gender".

Screw the Civil Rights Act, it should be ruled unconstitutional except for the government, fed, state, and local.

 

[Pop23]

Yes of course. Those alt-right people and neo Nazis should be allowed to discriminate against Jews and Blacks-right? MAGA !

And we should be free to discriminate against those toothless idiots.

But, don't sit there and act like you don't discriminate. Please tell me you are not wallowing in your own self-righteousness.

And this is all about a poorly named document that has no relationship to the spiritual concept of what it is named for.

Government either needs to:

1. Get the hell out of it entirely

or

2. Name it more appropriately.

PERIOD

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

In the marketplace as defined as "open to the general public" they should protect via the Civil Rights Act as to gender and race, because they are static conditions and cannot be helped and therefore cannot be punished. Gay lifestyles are "gender fluid" and opted for. They're behaviors . People cannot be required to condone offensive behaviors because if that was true, then ALL offensive behaviors (via equality remember) would be eligible for forced-condoning.

I understand that there was a time when a person could get no service of any kind because he/she was of the wrong race. That time is long passed.

Why not let sunshine disinfect?

Many of us (huge majority) would never give one cent to a business or organization that openly refused to provide services to a person based on race or gender.

Let the market decide.

 

[mdk]

Unless it's a violation of the Civil Rights Act re: discrimination. Gay sex lifestyles do not qualify for that coverage BTW because they aren't allowed to "bootstrap" behaviors onto the word "gender".

So, government should be involved in private associations?

In the marketplace as defined as "open to the general public" they should protect via the Civil Rights Act as to gender and race, because they are static conditions and cannot be helped and therefore cannot be punished. Gay lifestyles are "gender fluid" and opted for. They're behaviors . People cannot be required to condone offensive behaviors because if that was true, then ALL offensive behaviors (via equality remember) would be eligible for forced-condoning.

In short, you want it both ways.

 

[Pop23]

Unless it's a violation of the Civil Rights Act re: discrimination. Gay sex lifestyles do not qualify for that coverage BTW because they aren't allowed to "bootstrap" behaviors onto the word "gender".

So, government should be involved in private associations?

I could make the case for essential goods and services, all others, I can't see a real argument.