If Christians are allowed to discriminate against gays ...

[Seawytch]

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.

marriage to government is about property.

It's a bit more than that.

1. It also gives rights to access in cases of Hospitalization
2. It gives one partner the right to make medical decisions should the other partner be unable to decide on their own

and for some reason

3. Restricts closely related individual from entering the contract. However, it is not clear how this would apply, or if it is even enforceable with same sex couples.

well your option 1 and 2 can be easily resolved using the court to give permission in a contract to include someone in your health choices.

Separate but equal was ruled unconstitutional. Civil marriage vs civil unions was separate and unequal.

https://family.findlaw.com/domestic-partnerships/civil-unions-v-marriage.html

 

[Seawytch]

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.

still haven't seen your definition of marriage. where is it?

A union forming a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html

Agreed, however some will not understand that "conjugal" only means behaving as a Married couple. It does not have a sexual meaning.

And?

 

[Seawytch]

Your right to practice your religion has nothing to do with operating a business. Doesn't the bible say youre to follow the laws? Jefferson Beauregard Sessions and Sarah Huckleberry Sandbag said so.

I don't agree that they should discriminate, but who are you to say that their religion does not dictate how they conduct business?

The Bible does command Christians to obey laws. That's why they are complaining. You want to force upon them laws that remove their right to operate their business according to their conscience.

It's stupid and bullshit, but it's liberty. And they deserve it, just like you.

Let liberty come first. It is way more effective that government force.

Do you believe that we non-bigots will take care of you? Do you have faith in people generally being good?

Public Accommodation laws are laws. Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc have to abide by them. We've been down this road before.

Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 256 F. Supp. 941 (D.S.C. 1966)

Defendant Bessinger further contends that the Act violates his freedom of religion under the First Amendment "since his religious beliefs compel him to oppose any integration of the races whatever."[...]

Neither is the court impressed by defendant Bessinger's contention that the judicial enforcement of the public accommodations provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 upon which this suit is predicated violates the free exercise of his religious beliefs in contravention of the First Amendment to the Constitution. It is unquestioned that the First Amendment prohibits compulsion by law of any creed or the practice of any form of religion, but it also safeguards the free exercise of one's chosen religion. Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 82 S. Ct. 1261, 8 L. Ed. 2d 601 (1962). The free exercise of one's beliefs, however, as distinguished from the absolute right to a belief, is subject to regulation when religious acts require accommodation to society. United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 64 S. Ct. 882, 88 L. Ed. 1148 (1944) (Mails to defraud); Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 25 L. Ed. 244 (1878) (polygamy conviction); Prince v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 64 S. Ct. 438, 88 L. Ed. 645 (1943) (minor in company of ward distributing religious literature in violation of statute). Undoubtedly defendant Bessinger has a constitutional right to espouse the religious beliefs of his own choosing, however, he does not have the absolute right to exercise and practice such beliefs in utter disregard of the clear constitutional rights of other citizens. This court refuses to lend credence or support to his position that he has a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of the Negro race in his business establishments upon the ground that to do so would violate his sacred religious beliefs.

Bastardizing religion will often lead to these decisions. I object to the use of religion, when it's use is stupidly applied as well.

Sorry, but those were their sincerely held religious beliefs. They believed the Bible instructed them not to serve blacks just as deeply as today’s bigots believe it does for gays. (But not formerly divorced couples)

And in that case the courts saw through that charade.

And they may well see through the anti gay bigots charade as well. The recent SCOTUS case didn’t test it.

 

[Pop23]

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.

still haven't seen your definition of marriage. where is it?

A union forming a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights.

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/marriage-rights-benefits-30190.html

Agreed, however some will not understand that "conjugal" only means behaving as a Married couple. It does not have a sexual meaning.

And?

Just pointing that out because some folks actually think that sexual intimacy is a requirement for a legal marriage, the use of the word "conjugal" would lead some to believe it is. Some believe "conjugal" prison visit are sexual, when they are not that simple.

 

[Pop23]

I don't agree that they should discriminate, but who are you to say that their religion does not dictate how they conduct business?

The Bible does command Christians to obey laws. That's why they are complaining. You want to force upon them laws that remove their right to operate their business according to their conscience.

It's stupid and bullshit, but it's liberty. And they deserve it, just like you.

Let liberty come first. It is way more effective that government force.

Do you believe that we non-bigots will take care of you? Do you have faith in people generally being good?

Public Accommodation laws are laws. Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc have to abide by them. We've been down this road before.

Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 256 F. Supp. 941 (D.S.C. 1966)

Defendant Bessinger further contends that the Act violates his freedom of religion under the First Amendment "since his religious beliefs compel him to oppose any integration of the races whatever."[...]

Neither is the court impressed by defendant Bessinger's contention that the judicial enforcement of the public accommodations provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 upon which this suit is predicated violates the free exercise of his religious beliefs in contravention of the First Amendment to the Constitution. It is unquestioned that the First Amendment prohibits compulsion by law of any creed or the practice of any form of religion, but it also safeguards the free exercise of one's chosen religion. Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 82 S. Ct. 1261, 8 L. Ed. 2d 601 (1962). The free exercise of one's beliefs, however, as distinguished from the absolute right to a belief, is subject to regulation when religious acts require accommodation to society. United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 64 S. Ct. 882, 88 L. Ed. 1148 (1944) (Mails to defraud); Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 25 L. Ed. 244 (1878) (polygamy conviction); Prince v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 64 S. Ct. 438, 88 L. Ed. 645 (1943) (minor in company of ward distributing religious literature in violation of statute). Undoubtedly defendant Bessinger has a constitutional right to espouse the religious beliefs of his own choosing, however, he does not have the absolute right to exercise and practice such beliefs in utter disregard of the clear constitutional rights of other citizens. This court refuses to lend credence or support to his position that he has a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of the Negro race in his business establishments upon the ground that to do so would violate his sacred religious beliefs.

Bastardizing religion will often lead to these decisions. I object to the use of religion, when it's use is stupidly applied as well.

Sorry, but those were their sincerely held religious beliefs. They believed the Bible instructed them not to serve blacks just as deeply as today’s bigots believe it does for gays. (But not formerly divorced couples)

And in that case the courts saw through that charade.

And they may well see through the anti gay bigots charade as well. The recent SCOTUS case didn’t test it.

We will have to see. However, in the racial case, I'm not sure that it would be that hard to, through discovery and investigation, to simply determine that his bias was simply based on something other than religious belief.

 

[Natural Citizen]

You're loosing me here Pal. You have taken a simple matter of equality and turned in into massive ball a gobity gook. It does not matter what the benefits of legal marriage are or where they come from. The simple fact is that -like it or not- government sanctions marriage and provides a range of benefits, and if hetro couples can enjoy those benefits, so must gay couples be able to.

You have the right to assume responsibility for yourself. And the moral duty to exercise it. Though, that moral duty requires moral awareness. I think therein lies your shortcoming.

Do or do not. I don't really care. It doesn't affect my day in any way. I've never thought much of the religion of Statism, anyway.

 

[jc456]

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.

marriage to government is about property.

It's a bit more than that.

1. It also gives rights to access in cases of Hospitalization
2. It gives one partner the right to make medical decisions should the other partner be unable to decide on their own

and for some reason

3. Restricts closely related individual from entering the contract. However, it is not clear how this would apply, or if it is even enforceable with same sex couples.

well your option 1 and 2 can be easily resolved using the court to give permission in a contract to include someone in your health choices.

Separate but equal was ruled unconstitutional. Civil marriage vs civil unions was separate and unequal.

https://family.findlaw.com/domestic-partnerships/civil-unions-v-marriage.html

well they aren't equal. why would they be? you're attempting to tell everyone that a circle and a square are equal. they aren't bubba.

 

[jc456]

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?

As an unabashed "statist" I do not want to control religion as long as the practitioners of religion do so in the traditional sense of religious freed, and do not use it to control, demean , and marginalize others

sure you are. you want them to accept them into their group. why would they do that? and per the OP why would gays want to associate with a group that doesn't want them in their group other than forcing them to. what else is there?

 

[g5000]

well they aren't equal. why would they be? you're attempting to tell everyone that a circle and a square are equal. they aren't bubba.

Yeah, negroes and whites aren't equal. Why would they be?

 

[jc456]

marriage is what marriage is. male female. no matter how you wish to paint that picture. marriage is an institution been for thousands of years. gay love is gay love. allow the gays to invest time into what to call their unions. It isn't marriage. They have no ties at all to marriage. Allow them to live together and to hitch however they choose and the state agree with that union for the goodies. I fking don't care. It is not marriage. BTW, the whole try to cram husband and wife into a gay event is discrimination to a woman or a man depending on the gay couple sex. sad. Insulting and wrong.

So, marriage is an agreement between two people to stay together, share resources, possibly rear children, etc.?

and...

A Civil Union is an agreement between two people to stay together, share resources, possibly rear children, etc.?

The difference only being whether or not the plumbing is diverse?

How is treating the two situations differently anything but bigotry and discrimination?

because they mean two separate things with regard to normal. sorry somewhere normal must play a part in all of this. marriage is normal. it is what is defined in dictionaries. between two people of the opposite sex. period end of story. I really don't care what you wish to call people of the same sex wishing the government to treat them like married couples. Except, it isn't marriage. never will be. you can chime your thought until hell freezes over. It isn't normal. just isn't. I never have to accept it as such either.

 

[Pop23]

well they aren't equal. why would they be? you're attempting to tell everyone that a circle and a square are equal. they aren't bubba.

Yeah, negroes and whites aren't equal. Why would they be?

A Black child has no control which color he will be born. We know this and it is scientifically verifiable, even after death, and without testimony of those that knew them.

OK?

 

[jc456]

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.

along with the goodies was the loss of rights. you should at least know the whole position if you wish to discuss. It was posted in this thread already. personal individuality is lost.

I haven’t lost any rights by legally marrying my wife. I gained many. Thank you Windsor and Obergefell.

well try to purchase a home with her not getting any of the say in it. any property you purchase while married is automatically 50% hers. Same with any money made, earned and or saved.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You're loosing me here Pal. You have taken a simple matter of equality and turned in into massive ball a gobity gook. It does not matter what the benefits of legal marriage are or where they come from. The simple fact is that -like it or not- government sanctions marriage and provides a range of benefits, and if hetro couples can enjoy those benefits, so must gay couples be able to.

You have the right to assume responsibility for yourself. And the moral duty to exercise it. Though, that moral duty requires moral awareness. I think therein lies your shortcoming.

Do or do not. I don't really care. It doesn't affect my day in any way. I've never thought much of the religion of Statism, anyway.

And that's the real difference I am seeing, and why I believe we have no choice but to form two different countries.

Two quotes from Milton Friedman that I have in my signature:

"Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself."

"One of the greatest mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results."

Some on here do not believe that the free market will fix the problems identified. Ultimately, they do not believe in freedom.

This is the fundamental difference between libertarians and statists/progressives/communists. I don't think we can ever reach common ground. We are so far apart that I doubt we can live in the same country.

The Statists place full faith in government, pretending that the assholes who aspire to hold those offices are not ambitions and power hungry. But, every example throughout history proves that those who seek and obtain power will never stop taking power until they have it all and everyone else is at their disposal.

Government is force. That all it is. Force is the antithesis of liberty.

So, faith in government means that all problems must be solved by government. Solving those problems via government is solving problems via FORCE.

"This is the right way to treat people, so we're passing a law."

A translation: We are going to FORCE people to treat others the right way.

They demand FORCE but lack to foresight to see how such a demand will end in their demise. Before they know what happened, they end up having all their property confiscated and find themselves laboring to mine salt in Siberia.

Statists will never stop trying to FORCE others to behave the way the statists think they should.

How can we share a country when some demand FORCE at every turn?

We just.....need a divorce. That's it. I am nearly resigned to it.

 

[Silhouette]

Yep, the old "behavior is equal to race" thing is going to fall flat on its face as the tests at the USSC continue on these questions. Better brace yourself now for it rather than shatter from the impact later.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

well try to purchase a home with her not getting any of the say in it. any property you purchase while married is automatically 50% hers. Same with any money made, earned and or saved.

No, that property is held in common. They lose nothing by getting married.

If the get DIVORCED.....

 

[g5000]

well they aren't equal. why would they be? you're attempting to tell everyone that a circle and a square are equal. they aren't bubba.

Yeah, negroes and whites aren't equal. Why would they be?

A Black child has no control which color he will be born. We know this and it is scientifically verifiable, even after death, and without testimony of those that knew them.

OK?

A gay person has no control over which sexual orientation he or she will be. Ok?

 

[Pop23]

well try to purchase a home with her not getting any of the say in it. any property you purchase while married is automatically 50% hers. Same with any money made, earned and or saved.

No, that property is held in common. They lose nothing by getting married.

If the get DIVORCED.....

ALL HELL BREAKS LOOSE!

 

[g5000]

I'll tell you who has no control. Guys like Donald Trump who can't stop committing adultery. Yet I don't hear any of these alleged biblically compliant bigots complaining about it. Ever.

 

[Rustic]

well they aren't equal. why would they be? you're attempting to tell everyone that a circle and a square are equal. they aren't bubba.

Yeah, negroes and whites aren't equal. Why would they be?

A Black child has no control which color he will be born. We know this and it is scientifically verifiable, even after death, and without testimony of those that knew them.

OK?

A gay person has no control over which sexual orientation he or she will be. Ok?

Na, it’s a 100% choice... shit for brains

 

[g5000]

Yep, the old "behavior is equal to race" thing is going to fall flat on its face as the tests at the USSC continue on these questions. Better brace yourself now for it rather than shatter from the impact later.

Gay marriage has already been decided, sweety. It's legally protected in all 50 states. Where have you been?