If Christians are allowed to discriminate against gays ...

[buttercup]

If you can’t serve all members of the public find another line of work.

Good to know you believe in forcing people to go against their conscience.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Who is treating marriage as a privilege besides the bigots who-first wanted to limit it to two people of the same race, and more recently , to a man and a woman? What exactly is a privilege vs a right? .Lets think about that.

Privileges are bestowed by government. Rights exist solely by nature of the individual's existence (God given for the religious).

Privileges require application and permission. Rights already exist.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

No she is not right. That is just over the top batshit insane.! How can you sat=y that she may be right. Once again, I am lulled into thinking that you are a reasonable person, only to be disappointed and blindsided by this sort or inane equine excrement

Well, wait a minute. You're jumping the gun. Take time to internalize all that I say before you judge it. Please.

I said she may be right, that power brokers are using gay marriage as a tool to control religious organizations. I also said that religious people and organizations (A/K/A Jesus Nazis) are trying to control gays. That happens all the time. People in power use others and their issues to assert power.

But, read the rest.

Does that not make more sense?

Yes perhaps. But when you said that she may be right you were responding to this insane horseshit:
'

The homo marriage thing has never been about getting equal rights.
It has always been about eliminating the rights of Christians and bringing the churches under state control. Always.

I don't think that my reaction was unreasonable. There may be some truth to what you say, although I am not sure to what extent, but regardless, it in no way justifies validating that kind of insanity

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Who is treating marriage as a privilege besides the bigots who-first wanted to limit it to two people of the same race, and more recently , to a man and a woman? What exactly is a privilege vs a right? .Lets think about that.

Privileges are bestowed by government. Rights exist solely by nature of the individual's existence (God given for the religious).

Privileges require application and permission. Rights already exist.

Does that include all of the enumerated rights in the Constitution, as well as all of the implied rights and those established by case law? How does you position square with my last post?

 

[Leo123]

Since none of us live in a vacuum, our own freedom relies on others. Those actions not congruent to generally held views are not supported and sometimes made illegal to provide a foundation for a successful society.

Where does liberty fall in all of that successful society building?

There is no liberty without some kind of social order. I know that is a hard concept for some to get their mind around. In a boundless society, an individual will have their liberty curbed by the strongest, richest, etc. The very fact that we have a word like 'liberty' points to a thinking, society that values individual rights. You are not an island.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

But as a libertarian , I'm willing to bet that you would have no problem allowing others to force their shit on gays -without any fear of reprisals from the government. Right?

This is good. I would like to engage in this discussion.

Like what? How would they force their shit on gay?

How? Common.....if there were no laws against discrimination, if government just took a back seat to most interactions between citizens what would we have? We would have social Darwinism, and minorities would be screwed.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Children do not have the legal capacity to consent to a contract.

Coerced marriages are contracts by duress and are voidable.

Actually there is already a problem with child marriages and coercion IN THIS COUNTRY. The elimination of government oversight would only make it worse

 

[Leo123]

Who is treating marriage as a privilege besides the bigots who-first wanted to limit it to two people of the same race, and more recently , to a man and a woman? What exactly is a privilege vs a right? .Lets think about that.

Privileges are bestowed by government. Rights exist solely by nature of the individual's existence (God given for the religious).

Privileges require application and permission. Rights already exist.

Does that include all of the enumerated rights in the Constitution, as well as all of the implied rights and those established by case law? How does you position square with my last post?

I think 'rights' can only be granted by an organized society and those 'rights' will be relative to human manipulation....UNLESS....Those 'rights' are SAID to be granted by an all-powerful CREATOR that the majority agree is the arbiter.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Actually, it's you who is trying to redefine discrimination, by trying to label what the Christians believe as hate, when it is not hate.

I did not accuse anybody of hate. Hate is what happens between your own two ears. I told you several times before, I am concerned about how people are treated. I showed the way in which religious liberty- which used to mean the freedom to worship openly , and lead your life according to the tenants of your faith, has come to mean -for some the freedom to judge others for how they live. They have weaponized religion to further their political agenda.

I understand, and I agree, it's wrong to judge someone based on how they live, but we all do it. However, in my example, in referring to the Colorado bakery, there wasn't any evidence that the person was judging the gay couple, they were simply stating that they didn't want to participate in the ceremony by lending their creative talents to the occasion. There was no hate there, but you can be sure there are many on the left who made sure that was the narrative.

I don't mean you personally, I mean people in general.

The first problem is that the gay couple assumed it was hate, and discrimination, and then they put it out there in the media, and the media ran with it, and wouldn't ya know, the narrative across the nation was "oh those hateful discrimination christians!", and to me, that's just wrong, because a business felt as if that action would have went against their belief.

Now, if there was any kind of berating that went on, or rude comments toward the gay couple from the baker, then I would understand and agree. However, as far as we know, the baker simply said he couldn't comply with their request. Furthermore, it was said the bakery would have sold them any product already in the store, they just didn't want to create a product specially for the occasion. Had they been discriminating, or exhibiting hate, they would have refused service completely.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No she is not right. That is just over the top batshit insane.! How can you sat=y that she may be right. Once again, I am lulled into thinking that you are a reasonable person, only to be disappointed and blindsided by this sort or inane equine excrement

Well, wait a minute. You're jumping the gun. Take time to internalize all that I say before you judge it. Please.

I said she may be right, that power brokers are using gay marriage as a tool to control religious organizations. I also said that religious people and organizations (A/K/A Jesus Nazis) are trying to control gays. That happens all the time. People in power use others and their issues to assert power.

But, read the rest.

Does that not make more sense?

Yes perhaps. But when you said that she may be right you were responding to this insane horseshit:
'

The homo marriage thing has never been about getting equal rights.
It has always been about eliminating the rights of Christians and bringing the churches under state control. Always.

I don't think that my reaction was unreasonable. There may be some truth to what you say, although I am not sure to what extent, but regardless, it in no way justifies validating that kind of insanity

Horseshit is a fair description for parts of it, but other parts were not necessarily wrong, regardless of their bovinian excremental nature.

Statists want to control religion. I am far from religious, or I call myself a Norse Pagan, mainly as a joke. I only defend religious rights because liberty comes first. That includes the right of others to believe in, and worship, the tooth fairy. Who am I to deny them?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Let me ask you this, so, now we are at the point where bakers (or any business) has to concede their personal values to accommodate the wishes of someone else. How far of a stretch is it to envision that, if a business refuses to buy supplies from a company, because that company supports things that go against their values.

I've got news for you . You are talking about an entirely different matter. It is a false equivalency logical fallacy. It is one thing to refuse to serve someone who comes into your business. It is quite another thing to boycott a business. That happens all of the time and it is legal. It is idiotic to think that you can be told who to patronize.

What I mean is, let's say the Colorado baker needs to buy 1000lbs of flour. A flour mill comes to him and says they would like to sell him flour but the baker, having read a profile of the flour company, knew that the owners were gay, and used some of their proceeds to support gay rights, so the baker says that he is sorry but he can't purchase flour from them because his religion doesn't allow him to knowingly conduct business with people who's lifestyle goes against his religious values.

Now, do the owners of the flour company have a case against the baker, because they feel he is not purchasing from them based on their lifestyle?

Maybe I'm wrong, but, seems like that scenario would fall right in line with what is going on with this subject.

Or are you saying that a baker cannot refuse to do business with a patron of his store, but can refuse to do business with a supplier based on the same criteria? I don't know, seems pretty sketchy to me. I just feel if you concede to the gay couple, eventually, the way things ate going, the baker will eventually also have to concede to the supplier....and then he has lost control of his business.

 

[Lysistrata]

The homo marriage thing has never been about getting equal rights.

It has always been about eliminating the rights of Christians and bringing the churches under state control. Always.

What does recognizing the right of LGBTs to legally marry, either in a civil ceremony or in a ceremony conducted by according to the customs of their religious faith, Christian or other, have anything to do with eliminating the rights of those Christian sects who oppose same-sex marriage? You folks still end up having whatever ceremonies and rituals you want. Dance around the altar naked or dress in purple and do back-flips on the church lawn if you wish. And nobody is telling you that you can't have sex, take tax deductions, will your property to whomever you wish.

 

[Natural Citizen]

You can't be serious with this. You don't know that there are tangible benefits to legal, government recognized marriage? I know, you going to say something like government should be out of the marriage issue. I'm not going there

The fact is that the same sex marriage issue was about equality with opposite sex partners, but you knew that, didn't you?

Absolutely, I'm serious. And correct. License is the name of the game. Everyone should know what License means in a proper man-to-man, and therefore government-to-man relationship.

Now. Equalty. Sure, I could tell you that the government shouldn't be involved in our personal lives and personal choices. And that's correct, too. But that discussion is worn out, isn't it? It's a given. And it's a little more complex than that, anyway, if I were to expand on my first couple of sentences here. We don't have to talk about that if you don't wanna.

Getting back to my previous posting, let's do it this way.

Equality in Legal justice. Now there's a couple of fine words, isn't it? How often do you hear those spoken in that manner? Not very often, right? Legal justice. What's that mean to you? A thinking man might wonder if what is Legal is often/ever Lawful. Assuming he understood the difference.

Given that rights do not come as groups, but instead come as Individuals, and given that each Individual possesses the Individual right of freedom of association, and given that, in your words, same sex marriage issue was about equality with opposite sex partners (the deeply held views test?). What would you say are the particular benefits that you can't have without asking the federal government to oversee you?

 

[Natural Citizen]

That is quite a rant brother. You're kind of all over the map. Peer review, marriage discrimination, freedom of association. Get organized.

It's hardly a rant. To your credit, however, yes, I was all over the map. Somebody had to be the one to put things into proper perspective and relevant scope.

Here's the funny thing about threads like this. Particularly this thread. You could win the whole discussion and everyone would have to leave the thread and say, okay, that's it, PP won the thread. lol.

Your pride gets in the way, however. It always does. I come here and I give you the all of the answers in broad daylight, or at least the few you need, because the answer at the end of the day is always accomplished from a perspective of Individual liberty-Responsibility, and you're gonna sit there and call it a rant? Show some goddam respect. lol. It's to your benefit that people generally don't understand it. And it's also to your benefit to discuss such things from that perspective. That's how winning is done.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Gotta be fair.

 

[Pop23]

The correct solution was to disarm BOTH sides and declare marriage a contractual arrangement that does not, and should not require any type of state permission (license).

Leaving the door open to child marriages, coerced marriages , and incest.

Notice how PP is trying to deny this “right” to others by using fear and misstatements?

Remind you of anything else?

 

[Seawytch]

Fertility has nothing to do with civil marriage. Sorry, thought you would have known that.

I never said it did, now did I. What I DID SAY is that you want a secular version of Marriage with the Religious and Traditional overtones. Unbelievable and Hypocritical.

Says who? Everyone, religious and secular, pretty much observes the same wedding traditions. That’s why they are traditions. They aren’t Christian for shit sake, they’re pagan.

I hate to break into your ranting about the history of wedding cakes, but I feel the need to point out that it really doesn't matter WHERE the tradition came from.

If someone doesn't want to be involved in your wedding plans, there is no argument or rationale that's going to make it any less of a dick move to try to force them to. Just go find someone who DOES want to associate with you, and get on with your damned life.

Baking a cake does not involve the baker in the wedding. The hotel a child is conceived in does not involve the hotel in the family.

Your "Right" to be a carpet muncher does not trample their "Right" to practice their Religion.

Yes, actually, in some states and localities it does.

http://www.hrc.org/state-maps/public-accomodations

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

How? Common.....if there were no laws against discrimination, if government just took a back seat to most interactions between citizens what would we have? We would have social Darwinism, and minorities would be screwed.

I do not share your lack of faith in humanity.

Will there be discrimination? Sure. Will good people step up? We always do.

Past racial discrimination was perpetuated from a time when white people believed that the white race was superior. We are way past that now. Darwinism has killed off the bigots (for the most part). You are seeing the same thing with gays.

I have faith in people. They just need leadership.

 

[Seawytch]

no it wasn't. it was about being able to get the same benefits that married couples got from the government. Sickness stuff, and IRS tax stuff. Yeah they should be able to get all of that, but it isn't marriage that should allow it. Marriage is between a man and a wife. PERIOD, and stop trying to change what exists. fking leftists, can't stand your sorry asses.

I still stand with Dr. Thomas Sowell on this subject, and say that marriage is not some goody box of gifts and bennies from the government, and anyone who thinks it is either is terminally stupid, or is REALLY not doing marriage correctly.

So you only got married in a church? You don't file joint taxes or get those insurance discounts? Not going to take his SS if he goes first?

Like I said, if you really think, "Gosh, married people have so many advantages over single people 'cause of joint income tax filing and Social Security survivor benefits", you're a moron, and/or you are seriously ignorant about what marriage ACTUALLY is and what it's for. I've been saying this pretty much from the beginning of homosexuals saying, "We have to have legal marital sanction so that we're getting in on the goodies!"

Dr. Sowell wrote this back in 2005, but leaving aside the dated current event references, the underlying principles are still correct:

Gay Marriage 'Rights' Are Nonsensical | Human Events

Marriage is not a right extended to individuals by the government. It is a restriction on the rights they already have.

People who are simply living together can make whatever arrangements they want, whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. They can divide up their worldly belongings 50-50 or 90-10 or whatever other way they want. They can make their union temporary or permanent or subject to cancellation at any time.

Marriage is a restriction. If my wife buys an automobile with her own money, under California marriage laws I automatically own half of it, whether or not my name is on the title. Whether that law is good, bad, or indifferent, it is a limitation of our freedom to arrange such things as we ourselves might choose. This is just one of many decisions that marriage laws take out of our hands.

He wrote this in 2006:

Thomas Sowell - Gay "marriage"

Why is marriage considered to be any of the law's business in the first place? Because the state asserts an interest in the outcomes of certain unions, separate from and independent of the interests of the parties themselves.

In the absence of the institution of marriage, the individuals could arrange their relationship whatever way they wanted to, making it temporary or permanent, and sharing their worldly belongings in whatever way they chose.

Marriage means that the government steps in, limiting or even prescribing various aspects of their relations with each other -- and still more their relationship with whatever children may result from their union.

In other words, marriage imposes legal restrictions, taking away rights that individuals might otherwise have. Yet "gay marriage" advocates depict marriage as an expansion of rights to which they are entitled.

This is the standpoint with which I was agreeing earlier: from a legal standpoint, marriage is not an expansion of rights, a smorgasbord of extra goodies to which only married people are entitled; it is a restriction, legally speaking, and all those "benefits" people keep yammering on about are really just a legal recognition of that.

You didn’t answer the question. Did you only marry in a church or did you get the state issued marriage license? Gays had been marrying for decades without the goodies you straight folks got.

What in the holy fuck are you babbling about, or trying to get at? "Only marry in a church"? What the hell does that mean, or have to do with anything?

And the only "goody" heterosexuals have that homosexuals don't is the general opinion that our relationships are normal. Personally, I don't give a shit.

The goodies are what you straight people decided went along with civil marriage. Hundreds of rights, benefits and privileges that are associated with civil marriage and gays have equal access to them, so you're right, we get the goodies too. Oh, and the general opinion nowadays is that our relationships are normal. Welcome to the 21st Century.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Notice how PP is trying to deny this “right” to others by using fear and misstatements?

Remind you of anything else?

I think PP he has good intentions. I believe he listens and tries to understand my perspective. I also believe he understands where I'm coming from on the the liberty-first perceptive, even if he doesn't agree with it.

I hope everyone at least understands that I mean no ill will toward them--that I am not his enemy, even though we disagree.