Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What right am I trying to deny to who, Bubba? You wouldn't be suggesting that people have the right to marry children, now would you?Leaving the door open to child marriages, coerced marriages , and incest.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).
Notice how PP is trying to deny this “right” to others by using fear and misstatements?
Remind you of anything else?
At the very least, the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to the "most rigid scrutiny," Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 216 (1944), and, if they are ever to be upheld, they must be shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective, independent of the racial discrimination which it was the object of the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate.
Loving v. Virginia
Discrimination against gays much be shown to
I never said sex was a material reason to marry. Your premise is therefore entirely false.The bigoted bakers are pleading First Amendment rights. It's horseshit. Their bigotry has nothing to do with religion and the free exercise thereof. This is easily proven by their willingness to bake cakes for adulterers.
Have you ever heard of a baker refusing to bake a cake for someone remarrying?
Me, either.
And yet Jesus quite plainly said that is adultery. He never said a word about gays.
So the bigoted bakers' argument they are being biblicaly compliant is utter horseshit.
Except Marriage doesn't have sex as a material reason to marry, so there's that, plus this same Baker would not bake a cake for a Heterosexual same sex couple, same as a Homosexual Couple because the teaching is that Marriage is between a Man and a Woman.
Is your head about to pop yet?
Jesus was quite plain in his definition of adultery and those who divorce and remarry. Anyone who bakes a cake for someone who has divorced is not complying with the Bible.
Is your head about to pop yet?
If these hypocritical bakers stopped baking cakes for people who have divorced and are therefore adulterers, their business model would immediately implode. They'd be out of business.
So their arguments are horseshit. This is about hate. It has nothing to do with the bible or the First Amendment.
I am quite convinced that you're living in a fantasy world. We are no so far along and there are plenty of white people who are racists and there are still a good many homophobes as well. Good people will step up? What does that look like in the real world? I have faith in humanity-to a point and only to a point.I do not share your lack of faith in humanity.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.
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.
It never fails that in every topic about gay marriage, sooner or later someone comes along and tries to draw an equation between gays and pedophiles.You may be correct, but that's a two-way street.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.
It has always been about controlling other people.
One side wanted to control the relationships of others, while the other side wanted to control the religious beliefs of the other side. Gays were just caught up in it, and used as political pawns, when they simply wanted the same life as straight people.
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).
That would have fix all the problems.
Court can dissolve partnerships. A marriage is no different.
Courts already handle child-custody cases, so that nothing new either.
A contract does not require gender specifics. Nor is it limited to just two parties (polygamy--oh, no!!!). Nor does it exclude siblings or other close family members (incest -- oh, no!!!). It doesn't require the people to love each other or to be able to produce retarded spawn.
People with the legal capacity to enter into contracts have the legal capacity to marry. That eliminates children, dogs, trees, all other bullshit boogy-man concerns about what marriage will become.
When everyone started treating marriage as a privilege bestowed on us by the state, we lost our way. I believe it started with racism. One had to get permission from the state to be a "race traitor" and marry someone of a different race.
So, while I am glad the SCOTUS gave rights to gay couples, I think they missed an opportunity, but they may not have had the guts to live with the consequences. I see that in a lot of SCOTUS opinions.
Doesn't matter. We shouldn't pass laws forcing people to not be bigots.So the bigoted bakers' argument they are being biblicaly compliant is utter horseshit.
We can't force them not to be bigots. But we can force them not to discriminate.Doesn't matter. We shouldn't pass laws forcing people to not be bigots.So the bigoted bakers' argument they are being biblicaly compliant is utter horseshit.
Doesn't matter. We shouldn't pass laws forcing people to not be bigots.So the bigoted bakers' argument they are being biblicaly compliant is utter horseshit.
Wait a minute.It never fails that in every topic about gay marriage, sooner or later someone comes along and tries to draw an equation between gays and pedophiles.
This is a slippery slope logical fallacy.
As I have repeatedly said, one must show a societal harm. One must show a rational reason for denying a hated group equal protection of the laws.
There is a rational reason for excluding pedophiles. There is no rational reason for excluding gays.
Your premise fails.
... then gays should be allowed to discriminate against Christians.
Agree or Disagree?
I freely admit I do not like hypocritical bigots who commit sacrilege to further their bigotry.If these hypocritical bakers stopped baking cakes for people who have divorced and are therefore adulterers, their business model would immediately implode. They'd be out of business.
So their arguments are horseshit. This is about hate. It has nothing to do with the bible or the First Amendment.
The only hate I've seen is on your sides part.
The consequence of that distinction is exactly the same.We can't force them not to be bigots. But we can force them not to discriminate.
Thank you . I sort of understand you, and yes, I disagree .I do believe that you mean no harm. However, I also believe that what you advocate will, indeed result in great harm to someI 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.Notice how PP is trying to deny this “right” to others by using fear and misstatements?
Remind you of anything else?
I hope everyone at least understands that I mean no ill will toward them--that I am not his enemy, even though we disagree.
Well, the ugly hair people can always band together and demand their rights, too.The consequence of that distinction is exactly the same.We can't force them not to be bigots. But we can force them not to discriminate.
It's forcing someone to serve another against their will, but only if they want to refuse service for some reason SOME PEOPLE find offensive and mean.
It's the same bullshit.
Example:
I can refuse service to someone because I don't like their ugly hair. But, if I refuse service because I don't like their sexual orientation, I must be punished.
What about discrimination against people with bad hair?
Some want to force others to be nice. That ALL this shit is about.
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.
Some want to force others to serve them and do their bidding, including and especially when they are told to do something that they believe puts their soul in jeopardy.The consequence of that distinction is exactly the same.We can't force them not to be bigots. But we can force them not to discriminate.
It's forcing someone to serve another against their will, but only if they want to refuse service for some reason SOME PEOPLE find offensive and mean.
It's the same bullshit.
Example:
I can refuse service to someone because I don't like their ugly hair. But, if I refuse service because I don't like their sexual orientation, I must be punished.
What about discrimination against people with bad hair?
Some want to force others to be nice. That ALL this shit is about.
The bakers do not believe it would put their soul in jeopardy to bake a cake for a homo. That's total horseshit, and I have demonstrated the reasons why that is total horseshit several times in this topic.Some want to force others to serve them and do their bidding, including and especially when they are told to do something that they believe puts their soul in jeopardy.The consequence of that distinction is exactly the same.We can't force them not to be bigots. But we can force them not to discriminate.
It's forcing someone to serve another against their will, but only if they want to refuse service for some reason SOME PEOPLE find offensive and mean.
It's the same bullshit.
Example:
I can refuse service to someone because I don't like their ugly hair. But, if I refuse service because I don't like their sexual orientation, I must be punished.
What about discrimination against people with bad hair?
Some want to force others to be nice. That ALL this shit is about.
THAT'S what this is about.
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.
We can't force them not to be bigots. But we can force them not to discriminate.Doesn't matter. We shouldn't pass laws forcing people to not be bigots.So the bigoted bakers' argument they are being biblicaly compliant is utter horseshit.
