If Christians are allowed to discriminate against gays ...

[Pop23]

Actually, there is no reason that a state licensed marriage license can't be obtained by anyone (at least the denial would have to be for a rational legal basis and be able to withstand the "states compelling interest" test, which is nearly impossible.

That, however is where the statement, why limit age question fails. The Government asserts that minors (at that age is set by the State's), suffer from Diminished Capability, thus making them incapable of entering into these types of agreements or contracts.

Just feel lucky we still have that as legal reality OR KATIE BAR THE DOOR!

there is no difference. It was determined by society. can't have it both ways. We are either a society or we are not. there is no grey area.

Except that there is no grey area, at least as age is concerned. And it's not just Marriage, it is prevailing law on all matters in which someone judged to have "diminished capabilities' are concerned. It is long standing and has withstood challenge every time in court. It would take a change hundreds of times greater than that of the change created in Obergfell to chance this area of the law. And that is nearly impossible.

it's still a law enacted by society. and if your wishes are to eliminate society in all matters related to anyone thing, then precedence suggest it open for all things. that fking precedence thingy gets in the way of everything. once you head down the slope, then there is no way to stop the ride until it ends.

Again, it has withstood numerous legal challenges and will withstand all comers.

I bet someone would have said that with gay marriage eh?

Yes, it is a Paradox, however much less harmless than destroying "diminished capability".

Do you actually think that you could, no matter how many bleeding hearts you might find, would be able to create a movement toward legalizing sex with children? What politician would expend an oz of political capital on it? Certainly not one that wants to retain his/her seat. I also think you would see gays and straights unite in opposition.

That's just reality.

 

[jc456]

there is no difference. It was determined by society. can't have it both ways. We are either a society or we are not. there is no grey area.

Except that there is no grey area, at least as age is concerned. And it's not just Marriage, it is prevailing law on all matters in which someone judged to have "diminished capabilities' are concerned. It is long standing and has withstood challenge every time in court. It would take a change hundreds of times greater than that of the change created in Obergfell to chance this area of the law. And that is nearly impossible.

it's still a law enacted by society. and if your wishes are to eliminate society in all matters related to anyone thing, then precedence suggest it open for all things. that fking precedence thingy gets in the way of everything. once you head down the slope, then there is no way to stop the ride until it ends.

Again, it has withstood numerous legal challenges and will withstand all comers.

I bet someone would have said that with gay marriage eh?

Yes, it is a Paradox, however much less harmless than destroying "diminished capability".

Do you actually think that you could, no matter how many bleeding hearts you might find, would be able to create a movement toward legalizing sex with children? What politician would expend an oz of political capital on it? Certainly not one that wants to retain his/her seat. I also think you would see gays and straights unite in opposition.

That's just reality.

it isn't up to me, it seems it's up to the courts now. seems our courts wish to rule over us. I trust no human. I have always believed that society takes care of its own, and then entered the courts with leftist pieces of shit that think everything is ok today. yeah I worry about it.

 

[Pop23]

Except that there is no grey area, at least as age is concerned. And it's not just Marriage, it is prevailing law on all matters in which someone judged to have "diminished capabilities' are concerned. It is long standing and has withstood challenge every time in court. It would take a change hundreds of times greater than that of the change created in Obergfell to chance this area of the law. And that is nearly impossible.

it's still a law enacted by society. and if your wishes are to eliminate society in all matters related to anyone thing, then precedence suggest it open for all things. that fking precedence thingy gets in the way of everything. once you head down the slope, then there is no way to stop the ride until it ends.

Again, it has withstood numerous legal challenges and will withstand all comers.

I bet someone would have said that with gay marriage eh?

Yes, it is a Paradox, however much less harmless than destroying "diminished capability".

Do you actually think that you could, no matter how many bleeding hearts you might find, would be able to create a movement toward legalizing sex with children? What politician would expend an oz of political capital on it? Certainly not one that wants to retain his/her seat. I also think you would see gays and straights unite in opposition.

That's just reality.

it isn't up to me, it seems it's up to the courts now. seems our courts wish to rule over us. I trust no human. I have always believed that society takes care of its own, and then entered the courts with leftist pieces of shit that think everything is ok today. yeah I worry about it.

You would have to come up with sitting Justices that are so far Left that they would make Ginsberg look like George Wallace.

Clue, that doesn't exist.

 

[jc456]

it's still a law enacted by society. and if your wishes are to eliminate society in all matters related to anyone thing, then precedence suggest it open for all things. that fking precedence thingy gets in the way of everything. once you head down the slope, then there is no way to stop the ride until it ends.

Again, it has withstood numerous legal challenges and will withstand all comers.

I bet someone would have said that with gay marriage eh?

Yes, it is a Paradox, however much less harmless than destroying "diminished capability".

Do you actually think that you could, no matter how many bleeding hearts you might find, would be able to create a movement toward legalizing sex with children? What politician would expend an oz of political capital on it? Certainly not one that wants to retain his/her seat. I also think you would see gays and straights unite in opposition.

That's just reality.

it isn't up to me, it seems it's up to the courts now. seems our courts wish to rule over us. I trust no human. I have always believed that society takes care of its own, and then entered the courts with leftist pieces of shit that think everything is ok today. yeah I worry about it.

You would have to come up with sitting Justices that are so far Left that they would make Ginsberg look like George Wallace.

Clue, that doesn't exist.

and look at her. where did she come from? Again, the ride left the station. If we keep introducing shit as a society, eventually we will end up in hell.

 

[Pop23]

Again, it has withstood numerous legal challenges and will withstand all comers.

I bet someone would have said that with gay marriage eh?

Yes, it is a Paradox, however much less harmless than destroying "diminished capability".

Do you actually think that you could, no matter how many bleeding hearts you might find, would be able to create a movement toward legalizing sex with children? What politician would expend an oz of political capital on it? Certainly not one that wants to retain his/her seat. I also think you would see gays and straights unite in opposition.

That's just reality.

it isn't up to me, it seems it's up to the courts now. seems our courts wish to rule over us. I trust no human. I have always believed that society takes care of its own, and then entered the courts with leftist pieces of shit that think everything is ok today. yeah I worry about it.

You would have to come up with sitting Justices that are so far Left that they would make Ginsberg look like George Wallace.

Clue, that doesn't exist.

and look at her. where did she come from? Again, the ride left the station. If we keep introducing shit as a society, eventually we will end up in hell.

Millions of things get introduced into society all the time, only those that gather political capital, in some meaningful extent, stick.

The chances on this sticking is less than slim and none, it is none and none.

 

[Pop23]

Look, Everyone.

I disagree with the concept of Same Sex Marriage as much as anyone does, but trying to equate gay's with pedophiles?

That just goes too far.

I might believe they are both mental impairments, but that's a bit like saying the plumber down the street, dealing with a slight case of depression is the same as Charles Manson.

I ain't biting and will argue against such alongside Homosexuals being accused as such.

 

[buttercup]

Look, Everyone.

I disagree with the concept of Same Sex Marriage as much as anyone does, but trying to equate gay's with pedophiles?

That just goes too far.

I might believe they are both mental impairments, but that's a bit like saying the plumber down the street, dealing with a slight case of depression is the same as Charles Manson.

I ain't biting and will argue against such alongside Homosexuals being accused as such.

No one here has equated homosexuality with pedophilia, as far as I've seen. But if the definition of marriage is purely subjective, then ultimately it is meaningless. If there is no true, immutable definition of marriage, then no one can say it's wrong for ANYONE to marry, and anyone means anyone. The fact that this is so hard for a few of you to grasp is a bit frustrating.

 

[koshergrl]

Look, Everyone.

I disagree with the concept of Same Sex Marriage as much as anyone does, but trying to equate gay's with pedophiles?

That just goes too far.

I might believe they are both mental impairments, but that's a bit like saying the plumber down the street, dealing with a slight case of depression is the same as Charles Manson.

I ain't biting and will argue against such alongside Homosexuals being accused as such.

Then you're a fool.

 

[Pop23]

Look, Everyone.

I disagree with the concept of Same Sex Marriage as much as anyone does, but trying to equate gay's with pedophiles?

That just goes too far.

I might believe they are both mental impairments, but that's a bit like saying the plumber down the street, dealing with a slight case of depression is the same as Charles Manson.

I ain't biting and will argue against such alongside Homosexuals being accused as such.

No one here has equated homosexuality with pedophilia, as far as I've seen. But if the definition of marriage is purely subjective, then ultimately it is meaningless. If there is no true, immutable definition of marriage, then no one can say it's wrong for ANYONE to marry, and anyone means anyone. The fact that this is so hard for a few of you to grasp is a bit frustrating.

It indeed created a Paradox, in that we agree. Where we disagree, is this:

But if the definition of marriage is purely subjective, then ultimately it is meaningless. If there is no true, immutable definition of marriage, then no one can say it's wrong for ANYONE to marry, and anyone means anyone.

Here's your problem as I see it:

Marriage was defined as "one man and one woman, not closely related and of legal age of consent"

It is now loosely defined as "two consenting adults, not closely related and of age of consent"

That doesn't imply it has no meaning, it means it has no more meaning than any other State sanction contracts, much like a S. Corp or an LLC

Where I object is that the law "two consenting adults, not closely related and of age of consent" contains two qualifications that could not stand legal challenge.

1. That this specific contract limits the number of participants, for no explicit reasoning as to why it exists.

and

2. That the participants be not too closely related, again, for no explicit reason

At one time both the number of participants mad sense when connected to "not closely related". Connected, the two makes sense. The State is implying that sanctioning a Man and a Woman will often times produce a child, so the State does not want to be a part of sanctioning a defective gene pool. Today, what possible way can two sibling brothers, or a Father - Son, produce a defective gene pool?

And if you can't find a rational legal reason, one that meets the "States Compelling Interest" argument, against a Father - Son, or Same Sex Sibling brothers Marriage, then how do you stop a Mother - Daughter or a Mother - Son, or a Brother - Sister?

Here is how, and it is what creates the Paradox.

The State would assert that, to stop opposite sex, closely related individuals from Marrying, they will exclude all closely related from Marrying.

See the folly?

STAY WITH ME.........

To stop incestuous Marriage from happening, and the States sanctioning of what could be a defective gene pool, they will exert that the "Compelling State Interest" to deny all this group the right Marry is because a Sub-set of this group CAN PROCREATE.

Take out the stipulation that Marriage is between members of the opposite sex, not being too closely related, because of the possibility of defective gene pool, and there is not compelling state interest in the denial of sibling marriage except that, SOME MIGHT PROCREATE.

huh? I thought procreation was not to be used as a limitation to marriage?

Just to make this clear, I abhor the idea that sibling can marry, but I can't see where it is in the States Interest of denying this, unless it is simply to stop procreation, which cannot apply to same sex siblings, and as such, must be open to all as long as they have the capabilities to enter into any other contract.

^^^^ The Paradox

 

[Pop23]

Look, Everyone.

I disagree with the concept of Same Sex Marriage as much as anyone does, but trying to equate gay's with pedophiles?

That just goes too far.

I might believe they are both mental impairments, but that's a bit like saying the plumber down the street, dealing with a slight case of depression is the same as Charles Manson.

I ain't biting and will argue against such alongside Homosexuals being accused as such.

Then you're a fool.

That would make you a tool.

 

[Cecilie1200]

If they were hateful and racist, then yes, of course they were bigots. But their view is completely unbiblical, and demonstrably so. They were simply espousing their own personal opinion, and trying to use the Bible to do so, but that doesn't make it biblical.

The racist bigots have bible verses too and they feel just as strongly about them as the anti gay bigots do.

Racism is completely antithetical to Christianity. It doesn't matter if they try to use the Bible to justify their racism… It is very easy to disprove, and anyone who knows God knows that God does not care about skin color or a person's physical appearance…God cares about our heart.

Homosexuality, on the other hand is clearly unbiblical. So to try to equate racists with Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin shows a profound lack of understanding, or ignorance.

Racist don't think so. They have bible verses too.

And he [God] made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,

You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons,

As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you.

Christians who aren't anti gay don't think the bible supports anti gay bigotry.

And, as always, you have to look at who's cherrypicking and taking things out of context, and who isn't. Usually a pretty good clue as to who's full of shit.

I agree, these so called Christian bakers are taking the bible out of context, cherrypicking and are full of shit...but do they have a right to "religious freedom" we did not give to segregationists?

Clearly, I need to dumb this down even further for you.

I don't give a fat rat's ass what you think the Bible does and doesn't support, since we both know YOU don't actually give a shit what the Bible says unless you think it's a "Gotcha!" moment.

Is that clear enough?

No one is asking you for your seal of approval on whether or not their religious beliefs are "correct". Nowhere in the law does it say, "Freedom of religion . . . as long as Seabytch says it's okay".

Go bother someone else with your cake orders, and learn to like yourself so that you don't have to try to sue other people into pretending to do so.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I understood exactly what you said. You said- and I am paraphrasing - that because we allow same sex marriage, there is not logical, or rational, reason to prohibit a pedophile from marrying a child. It is pretty much the same thing as claiming that same sex marriage will lead to pedophile marriage. I explained why that is stupid, ignorant and dangerous but you seem to be living in an alternative reality where there is no distinction between individual, subjective reality, and the objective truth encoded in our laws that most people agree on that provides the framework for a rational and stable society.

Hold on a minute. You don't believe that all laws are rooted in objective truth, do you? You can't actually believe that, but the reason I ask is because the way you worded your last sentence almost makes it sound like you are equating those two. So to be clear, please answer this question… Do man-made laws constitute objective truth, yes or no?

And I see what the problem is here. You are looking at this from a purely practical standpoint. And I am looking at it from a more philosophical standpoint. When you look at it that way, what I said was not ridiculous at all. It is absolutely true that if something is purely subjective, then there is no right answer, no particular opinion can be more right than any other. Do you disagree with that?

No I do not agree. The law is the objective truth to the extent to which it reflects a consensus about values and social norms. I maintain that your statement- that there is no basis for denying a pedophile to marry a child since we allow same sex marriage is ridiculous, and bizarre by ant measure.

By definition, anything that "reflects a consensus" is not an objective truth, moron. Try to wrap both of your functioning brain cells around the meaning of "objective truth", because you're out in Lala-Land right now.

 

[Cecilie1200]

So which sex?

He makes wedding cakes for man/woman customers, but refuses to make wedding cakes for man/man or woman/woman customers. That is the very clearly differentiating sales based on the sex of the customers.


Keep asking the same question (or derivative thereof) and you get the same answer.


.>>>>

Discriminating on the basis of the sex of the customers would be "I'll sell cakes to men, but not to women". He's not doing that. Discriminating on the basis of sexuality would be "I'll sell cakes to heterosexuals, but not to homosexuals". He's not doing that either, since he's said he'll be happy to sell them any other cake he's got. What he's doing is discriminating on the basis of event type: he won't custom-decorate cakes for homosexual "weddings", or Hallowe'en parties, or divorce parties, because all of those EVENTS - not the people holding the events, but the events themselves - are contrary to his religious beliefs.

Please stop mucking up the English language with your fuzzy imprecision of word choice.

 

[buttercup]

By definition, anything that "reflects a consensus" is not an objective truth, moron. Try to wrap both of your functioning brain cells around the meaning of "objective truth", because you're out in Lala-Land right now.

That is exactly what I was going to explain to him, but since the thread moved so quickly, I didn't get back to that post. So thank you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

By definition, anything that "reflects a consensus" is not an objective truth, moron. Try to wrap both of your functioning brain cells around the meaning of "objective truth", because you're out in Lala-Land right now.

That is exactly what I was going to explain to him, but since the thread moved so quickly, I didn't get back to that post. So thank you.

My pleasure. Imprecise English is my pet peeve.

 

[Seawytch]

The racist bigots have bible verses too and they feel just as strongly about them as the anti gay bigots do.

Racism is completely antithetical to Christianity. It doesn't matter if they try to use the Bible to justify their racism… It is very easy to disprove, and anyone who knows God knows that God does not care about skin color or a person's physical appearance…God cares about our heart.

Homosexuality, on the other hand is clearly unbiblical. So to try to equate racists with Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin shows a profound lack of understanding, or ignorance.

Racist don't think so. They have bible verses too.

And he [God] made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,

You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons,

As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you.

Christians who aren't anti gay don't think the bible supports anti gay bigotry.

And, as always, you have to look at who's cherrypicking and taking things out of context, and who isn't. Usually a pretty good clue as to who's full of shit.

I agree, these so called Christian bakers are taking the bible out of context, cherrypicking and are full of shit...but do they have a right to "religious freedom" we did not give to segregationists?

Clearly, I need to dumb this down even further for you.

I don't give a fat rat's ass what you think the Bible does and doesn't support, since we both know YOU don't actually give a shit what the Bible says unless you think it's a "Gotcha!" moment.

Is that clear enough?

No one is asking you for your seal of approval on whether or not their religious beliefs are "correct". Nowhere in the law does it say, "Freedom of religion . . . as long as Seabytch says it's okay".

Go bother someone else with your cake orders, and learn to like yourself so that you don't have to try to sue other people into pretending to do so.

Boy are you missing the point (Which is not at all surprising) and not keeping up with the conversation.

Why should anti gay bigots be given religious exemption from laws that we don't give racist bigots?

 

[Pop23]

Racism is completely antithetical to Christianity. It doesn't matter if they try to use the Bible to justify their racism… It is very easy to disprove, and anyone who knows God knows that God does not care about skin color or a person's physical appearance…God cares about our heart.

Homosexuality, on the other hand is clearly unbiblical. So to try to equate racists with Christians who believe homosexuality is a sin shows a profound lack of understanding, or ignorance.

Racist don't think so. They have bible verses too.

And he [God] made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,

You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons,

As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you.

Christians who aren't anti gay don't think the bible supports anti gay bigotry.

And, as always, you have to look at who's cherrypicking and taking things out of context, and who isn't. Usually a pretty good clue as to who's full of shit.

I agree, these so called Christian bakers are taking the bible out of context, cherrypicking and are full of shit...but do they have a right to "religious freedom" we did not give to segregationists?

Clearly, I need to dumb this down even further for you.

I don't give a fat rat's ass what you think the Bible does and doesn't support, since we both know YOU don't actually give a shit what the Bible says unless you think it's a "Gotcha!" moment.

Is that clear enough?

No one is asking you for your seal of approval on whether or not their religious beliefs are "correct". Nowhere in the law does it say, "Freedom of religion . . . as long as Seabytch says it's okay".

Go bother someone else with your cake orders, and learn to like yourself so that you don't have to try to sue other people into pretending to do so.

Boy are you missing the point (Which is not at all surprising) and not keeping up with the conversation.

Why should anti gay bigots be given religious exemption from laws that we don't give racist bigots?

Because discrimination is not always based on Bigotry. I'll share this post again that is applicable and you try to answer as to what damage happened:

A Customer comes into a Restaurant that the Owner knows from many previous visits. This customer is Black and a known Muslim. The Restaurant owner knows this because he always orders a BLT without the Bacon and has told the owner that the reason he orders the sandwich without Bacon is because he is a Muslim, and eating Bacon would be a sin.

Today the Owner takes the Man's order, but today the Muslim orders a BLT with Bacon.

The Owner tells the Man that he won't make him, or any known Muslim an order that includes Bacon. The Muslim insists. The Owner asks why? The Muslim says it's none of the Owners business and, since he makes BLT's for others, he demands he makes a BLT for him.

The Owner refuses and tells the Customer that he will not participate in another Man's Sin, that he feels that would make him a Sinner and violates, not the Customers religious freedom, but his, the Owner. (and WW, if you wan't to make this a hamburger/Bacon burger, feel free).

Should the Owner of the Cafe be held legally liable?

 

[jc456]

I bet someone would have said that with gay marriage eh?

Yes, it is a Paradox, however much less harmless than destroying "diminished capability".

Do you actually think that you could, no matter how many bleeding hearts you might find, would be able to create a movement toward legalizing sex with children? What politician would expend an oz of political capital on it? Certainly not one that wants to retain his/her seat. I also think you would see gays and straights unite in opposition.

That's just reality.

it isn't up to me, it seems it's up to the courts now. seems our courts wish to rule over us. I trust no human. I have always believed that society takes care of its own, and then entered the courts with leftist pieces of shit that think everything is ok today. yeah I worry about it.

You would have to come up with sitting Justices that are so far Left that they would make Ginsberg look like George Wallace.

Clue, that doesn't exist.

and look at her. where did she come from? Again, the ride left the station. If we keep introducing shit as a society, eventually we will end up in hell.

Millions of things get introduced into society all the time, only those that gather political capital, in some meaningful extent, stick.

The chances on this sticking is less than slim and none, it is none and none.

until there is one. do one, you got to do the next. it's how the snowball rule works.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I understood exactly what you said. You said- and I am paraphrasing - that because we allow same sex marriage, there is not logical, or rational, reason to prohibit a pedophile from marrying a child. It is pretty much the same thing as claiming that same sex marriage will lead to pedophile marriage. I explained why that is stupid, ignorant and dangerous but you seem to be living in an alternative reality where there is no distinction between individual, subjective reality, and the objective truth encoded in our laws that most people agree on that provides the framework for a rational and stable society.

Hold on a minute. You don't believe that all laws are rooted in objective truth, do you? You can't actually believe that, but the reason I ask is because the way you worded your last sentence almost makes it sound like you are equating those two. So to be clear, please answer this question… Do man-made laws constitute objective truth, yes or no?

And I see what the problem is here. You are looking at this from a purely practical standpoint. And I am looking at it from a more philosophical standpoint. When you look at it that way, what I said was not ridiculous at all. It is absolutely true that if something is purely subjective, then there is no right answer, no particular opinion can be more right than any other. Do you disagree with that?

No I do not agree. The law is the objective truth to the extent to which it reflects a consensus about values and social norms. I maintain that your statement- that there is no basis for denying a pedophile to marry a child since we allow same sex marriage is ridiculous, and bizarre by ant measure.

By definition, anything that "reflects a consensus" is not an objective truth, moron. Try to wrap both of your functioning brain cells around the meaning of "objective truth", because you're out in Lala-Land right now.

What is moronic is the idea that you must allow pedophiles to marry.

 

[Pop23]

Yes, it is a Paradox, however much less harmless than destroying "diminished capability".

Do you actually think that you could, no matter how many bleeding hearts you might find, would be able to create a movement toward legalizing sex with children? What politician would expend an oz of political capital on it? Certainly not one that wants to retain his/her seat. I also think you would see gays and straights unite in opposition.

That's just reality.

it isn't up to me, it seems it's up to the courts now. seems our courts wish to rule over us. I trust no human. I have always believed that society takes care of its own, and then entered the courts with leftist pieces of shit that think everything is ok today. yeah I worry about it.

You would have to come up with sitting Justices that are so far Left that they would make Ginsberg look like George Wallace.

Clue, that doesn't exist.

and look at her. where did she come from? Again, the ride left the station. If we keep introducing shit as a society, eventually we will end up in hell.

Millions of things get introduced into society all the time, only those that gather political capital, in some meaningful extent, stick.

The chances on this sticking is less than slim and none, it is none and none.

until there is one. do one, you got to do the next. it's how the snowball rule works.

Your snowball is at the bottom of the hill, and that happens as well.