Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Skylar]

So you are in favor of people being able to refuse to serve black people on religious grounds? Say, at a lunch counter?

Here's a fun fact for you. Jim Crow ... laws ... were government. Didn't know that, did you?

Government has no legitimate power either to force nor deny it's citizens from engaging in business transactions.

Here's a fun fact for you. That...is...irrelevant. Pointing to an example where government did its job poorly and then saying "well guess government doesn't have the right to do anything" is just not a constructive argument.

Kaz tries to turn any discussion into an anarchy discussion. Its his schtick.

 

[Skylar]

If ever you actually want to stop feeling like you're in conflict with others, it's entirely in Christians' hands to end it. Just let other people live their fucking lives.

That goes for you too bro. Stop forcing other people to participate in your cult.

No one is being forced to participate in anything.

Other than to follow the law.

If Citizen's of Pennsylvania don't like the law- then they can change it.
Or if the business people feel like their rights are being violated- then just like gay couples who want to be able to legally marry each other- they can file a lawsuit to overturn the law.

But the law treats all business owners the same- no special treatment just because they are Christians.

And that's what some Christians are lamenting over. That they aren't being treated specially. That they are being treated like everyone else. Beagle has lamented about the prized position of Christianity over all other faiths in our nation's past. And describes the lack of the same today as an 'attack'.

Its not. Its called equality. Get used to it.

Bull, you are full of shit. I'm not even a Christian and clearly the left is not treating them the same. Back this up with links. I'm calling you out on your crap.

The 'left', huh? And who is the 'left' in your post above?

 

[kaz]

So you are in favor of people being able to refuse to serve black people on religious grounds? Say, at a lunch counter?

Here's a fun fact for you. Jim Crow ... laws ... were government. Didn't know that, did you?

Government has no legitimate power either to force nor deny it's citizens from engaging in business transactions.

Here's a fun fact for you. That...is...irrelevant. Pointing to an example where government did its job poorly and then saying "well guess government doesn't have the right to do anything" is just not a constructive argument.

So in response to government forcing people to do business with gays, you brought up that government forced people to not do business with blacks as a rebuttal. My pointing out that is government both time is irrelevant. Got it. Liberals trying to do logic always cracks me up.

You should think about my point. Government using force to compel it's citizens who they do or don't do business with is wrong. It's a great point

 

[kaz]

If ever you actually want to stop feeling like you're in conflict with others, it's entirely in Christians' hands to end it. Just let other people live their fucking lives.

That goes for you too bro. Stop forcing other people to participate in your cult.

No one is being forced to participate in anything.

Other than to follow the law.

If Citizen's of Pennsylvania don't like the law- then they can change it.
Or if the business people feel like their rights are being violated- then just like gay couples who want to be able to legally marry each other- they can file a lawsuit to overturn the law.

But the law treats all business owners the same- no special treatment just because they are Christians.

And that's what some Christians are lamenting over. That they aren't being treated specially. That they are being treated like everyone else. Beagle has lamented about the prized position of Christianity over all other faiths in our nation's past. And describes the lack of the same today as an 'attack'.

Its not. Its called equality. Get used to it.

Bull, you are full of shit. I'm not even a Christian and clearly the left is not treating them the same. Back this up with links. I'm calling you out on your crap.

The 'left', huh? And who is the 'left' in your post above?

Your deflection is a clear admission you can't back up that Christians are asking for special legal rights.

 

[kaz]

So you are in favor of people being able to refuse to serve black people on religious grounds? Say, at a lunch counter?

Here's a fun fact for you. Jim Crow ... laws ... were government. Didn't know that, did you?

Government has no legitimate power either to force nor deny it's citizens from engaging in business transactions.

Here's a fun fact for you. That...is...irrelevant. Pointing to an example where government did its job poorly and then saying "well guess government doesn't have the right to do anything" is just not a constructive argument.

Kaz tries to turn any discussion into an anarchy discussion. Its his schtick.

First of all, moron, I'm not an anarchist. Tell me again how liberals are smarter than conservatives because you're not all black and white like they are, LOL. Here you go.

What is a small government libertarian US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And as I pointed out, you turn every discussion into a socialism discussion. So explain how your advocating your consistent authoritarian leftist views in every discussion is OK but my discussing ... small ... government isn't?

 

[Skylar]

That goes for you too bro. Stop forcing other people to participate in your cult.

No one is being forced to participate in anything.

Other than to follow the law.

If Citizen's of Pennsylvania don't like the law- then they can change it.
Or if the business people feel like their rights are being violated- then just like gay couples who want to be able to legally marry each other- they can file a lawsuit to overturn the law.

But the law treats all business owners the same- no special treatment just because they are Christians.

And that's what some Christians are lamenting over. That they aren't being treated specially. That they are being treated like everyone else. Beagle has lamented about the prized position of Christianity over all other faiths in our nation's past. And describes the lack of the same today as an 'attack'.

Its not. Its called equality. Get used to it.

Bull, you are full of shit. I'm not even a Christian and clearly the left is not treating them the same. Back this up with links. I'm calling you out on your crap.

The 'left', huh? And who is the 'left' in your post above?

Your deflection is a clear admission you can't back up that Christians are asking for special legal rights.

Its immediately relevant. As if by the 'left', you're speaking of some government that's going to be starkly different than if by the 'left', you're speaking of some private citizens who complained or boycotted a business.

The former has to do with legal rights. The latter, private consequence for statements or actions. Which has nothing to do with legal rights.

So.... who is the 'left' in your post above?

 

[Skylar]

So you are in favor of people being able to refuse to serve black people on religious grounds? Say, at a lunch counter?

Here's a fun fact for you. Jim Crow ... laws ... were government. Didn't know that, did you?

Government has no legitimate power either to force nor deny it's citizens from engaging in business transactions.

Here's a fun fact for you. That...is...irrelevant. Pointing to an example where government did its job poorly and then saying "well guess government doesn't have the right to do anything" is just not a constructive argument.

Kaz tries to turn any discussion into an anarchy discussion. Its his schtick.

First of all, moron, I'm not an anarchist. Tell me again how liberals are smarter than conservatives because you're not all black and white like they are, LOL. Here you go.

What is a small government libertarian US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And as I pointed out, you turn every discussion into a socialism discussion. So explain how your advocating your consistent authoritarian leftist views in every discussion is OK but my discussing ... small ... government isn't?

See, Paperman. Its the same schtick.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

The First Amendment forbids public law from forcing anything on religious institutions, just as it forbids religious institutions from imposing their will on the public.

Not bad. I may have said it a bit differently, but you got the gist of it. And fast, too.

 

[Skylar]

So you are in favor of people being able to refuse to serve black people on religious grounds? Say, at a lunch counter?

Here's a fun fact for you. Jim Crow ... laws ... were government. Didn't know that, did you?

Government has no legitimate power either to force nor deny it's citizens from engaging in business transactions.

Here's a fun fact for you. That...is...irrelevant. Pointing to an example where government did its job poorly and then saying "well guess government doesn't have the right to do anything" is just not a constructive argument.

So in response to government forcing people to do business with gays, you brought up that government forced people to not do business with blacks as a rebuttal. My pointing out that is government both time is irrelevant. Got it. Liberals trying to do logic always cracks me up.

Obviously, its not. The States have authority over Intra-state commerce. Its reasonable and within their authority to establish minimum standards of conduct for those engaged in commerce. Namely, that those conducting commerce with the public within their state treat their customers fairly and equally.

The State can and does fine them if they violate these minimum standards.

 

[kaz]

Its immediately relevant. As if by the 'left', you're speaking of some government that's going to be starkly different than if by the 'left', you're speaking of some private citizens who complained or boycotted a business.

The former has to do with legal rights. The latter, private consequence for statements or actions. Which has nothing to do with legal rights.

So.... who is the 'left' in your post above?

Who are you claiming Christians want to treat them as "Special?"

 

[kaz]

So you are in favor of people being able to refuse to serve black people on religious grounds? Say, at a lunch counter?

Here's a fun fact for you. Jim Crow ... laws ... were government. Didn't know that, did you?

Government has no legitimate power either to force nor deny it's citizens from engaging in business transactions.

Here's a fun fact for you. That...is...irrelevant. Pointing to an example where government did its job poorly and then saying "well guess government doesn't have the right to do anything" is just not a constructive argument.

Kaz tries to turn any discussion into an anarchy discussion. Its his schtick.

First of all, moron, I'm not an anarchist. Tell me again how liberals are smarter than conservatives because you're not all black and white like they are, LOL. Here you go.

What is a small government libertarian US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

And as I pointed out, you turn every discussion into a socialism discussion. So explain how your advocating your consistent authoritarian leftist views in every discussion is OK but my discussing ... small ... government isn't?

See, Paperman. Its the same schtick.

It's the same schtick you use with socialism. Your solution to every problem is government. I think government should be minimized. Every time I argue that, you whine it's a schtick, move on, but your solution is always government. How is it different? Why can you not STFU about government solutions as you advocate I STFU about free markets?

 

[Skylar]

Its immediately relevant. As if by the 'left', you're speaking of some government that's going to be starkly different than if by the 'left', you're speaking of some private citizens who complained or boycotted a business.

The former has to do with legal rights. The latter, private consequence for statements or actions. Which has nothing to do with legal rights.

So.... And who is the 'left' in your post above?

Who are you claiming Christians want to treat them as "Special?"

The government, through PA laws. With Christians to be given special exemptions from generally applicable laws of commerce forbidding discrimination.

So, for the third time..... who is the 'left' in your post above? If you don't know, just say so.

 

[kaz]

So you are in favor of people being able to refuse to serve black people on religious grounds? Say, at a lunch counter?

Here's a fun fact for you. Jim Crow ... laws ... were government. Didn't know that, did you?

Government has no legitimate power either to force nor deny it's citizens from engaging in business transactions.

Here's a fun fact for you. That...is...irrelevant. Pointing to an example where government did its job poorly and then saying "well guess government doesn't have the right to do anything" is just not a constructive argument.

So in response to government forcing people to do business with gays, you brought up that government forced people to not do business with blacks as a rebuttal. My pointing out that is government both time is irrelevant. Got it. Liberals trying to do logic always cracks me up.

Obviously, its not. The States have authority over Intra-state commerce. Its reasonable and within their authority to establish minimum standards of conduct for those engaged in commerce. Namely, that those conducting commerce with the public within their state treat their customers fairly and equally.

The State can and does fine them if they violate these minimum standards.

Get off the socialism schtick, government is your solution to every problem. Stop turning every discussion into a platform to spout socialism.

 

[Skylar]

So you are in favor of people being able to refuse to serve black people on religious grounds? Say, at a lunch counter?

Here's a fun fact for you. Jim Crow ... laws ... were government. Didn't know that, did you?

Government has no legitimate power either to force nor deny it's citizens from engaging in business transactions.

Here's a fun fact for you. That...is...irrelevant. Pointing to an example where government did its job poorly and then saying "well guess government doesn't have the right to do anything" is just not a constructive argument.

So in response to government forcing people to do business with gays, you brought up that government forced people to not do business with blacks as a rebuttal. My pointing out that is government both time is irrelevant. Got it. Liberals trying to do logic always cracks me up.

Obviously, its not. The States have authority over Intra-state commerce. Its reasonable and within their authority to establish minimum standards of conduct for those engaged in commerce. Namely, that those conducting commerce with the public within their state treat their customers fairly and equally.

The State can and does fine them if they violate these minimum standards.

Get off the socialism schtick, government is your solution to every problem. Stop turning every discussion into a platform to spout socialism.

Notice how you don't actually disagree with me on the authority granted the States over intrastate commerce. The State's authority is immediately relevant to the issue, contrary to your claims otherwise.

Notice how you don't actually disagree with me on it being reasonable for the State to establish minimum standards of conduct in business.

Its both reasonable and quite legal for the States to set up PA laws. And to fine those who violate them.

 

[kaz]

Its immediately relevant. As if by the 'left', you're speaking of some government that's going to be starkly different than if by the 'left', you're speaking of some private citizens who complained or boycotted a business.

The former has to do with legal rights. The latter, private consequence for statements or actions. Which has nothing to do with legal rights.

So.... And who is the 'left' in your post above?

Who are you claiming Christians want to treat them as "Special?"

The government, through PA laws. With Christians to be given special exemptions from generally applicable laws of commerce forbidding discrimination.

So, for the third time..... who is the 'left' in your post above? If you don't know, just say so.

As always:

#1: Again with the socialism. Move on, you are a one trick pony. Every discussion doesn't need to turn into your views that government will solve all problems. Every discussion does not need to be about your socialist ideology.

#2: You didn't show Christians want to be the only ones exempted from those laws, everything I've seen is they want "religion" exempted. Show where they only want Christians exempted, which was your claim.

#3: The true left are libertarians, we are classic liberals. The modern left are authoritarian leftists. The majority of those are Democrats, and the majority of the rest vote for Democrats. I don't see the relevance, which is why I wasn't addressing it. But there is nothing liberal about the modern "left," not at all. You are all about removing choice. Like in this discussion. Where you are harping on your socialism again.

 

[Skylar]

Its immediately relevant. As if by the 'left', you're speaking of some government that's going to be starkly different than if by the 'left', you're speaking of some private citizens who complained or boycotted a business.

The former has to do with legal rights. The latter, private consequence for statements or actions. Which has nothing to do with legal rights.

So.... And who is the 'left' in your post above?

Who are you claiming Christians want to treat them as "Special?"

The government, through PA laws. With Christians to be given special exemptions from generally applicable laws of commerce forbidding discrimination.

So, for the third time..... who is the 'left' in your post above? If you don't know, just say so.

As always:

#1: Again with the socialism. Move on, you are a one trick pony. Every discussion doesn't need to turn into your views that government will solve all problems. Every discussion does not need to be about your socialist ideology.

#2: You didn't show Christians want to be the only ones exempted from those laws, everything I've seen is they want "religion" exempted. Show where they only want Christians exempted, which was your claim.

#3: The true left are libertarians, we are classic liberals. The modern left are authoritarian leftists. The majority of those are Democrats, and the majority of the rest vote for Democrats. I don't see the relevance, which is why I wasn't addressing it.

So can't tell us who the 'left' is in your criticism of Christians being treated unfairly by 'the left'. When you can, talk to us.

 

[kaz]

So you are in favor of people being able to refuse to serve black people on religious grounds? Say, at a lunch counter?

Here's a fun fact for you. Jim Crow ... laws ... were government. Didn't know that, did you?

Government has no legitimate power either to force nor deny it's citizens from engaging in business transactions.

Here's a fun fact for you. That...is...irrelevant. Pointing to an example where government did its job poorly and then saying "well guess government doesn't have the right to do anything" is just not a constructive argument.

So in response to government forcing people to do business with gays, you brought up that government forced people to not do business with blacks as a rebuttal. My pointing out that is government both time is irrelevant. Got it. Liberals trying to do logic always cracks me up.

Obviously, its not. The States have authority over Intra-state commerce. Its reasonable and within their authority to establish minimum standards of conduct for those engaged in commerce. Namely, that those conducting commerce with the public within their state treat their customers fairly and equally.

The State can and does fine them if they violate these minimum standards.

That doesn't contradict what I said.

 

[kaz]

Notice how you don't actually disagree with me on the authority granted the States over intrastate commerce. The State's authority is immediately relevant to the issue, contrary to your claims otherwise.

I didn't disagree because the Constitution doesn't prevent them from doing that.

Notice how you don't actually disagree with me on it being reasonable for the State to establish minimum standards of conduct in business.

Bull, everything I said contradicts your socialist views on that.

Its both reasonable and quite legal for the States to set up PA laws. And to fine those who violate them.

Begging the question

 

[Skylar]

So you are in favor of people being able to refuse to serve black people on religious grounds? Say, at a lunch counter?

Here's a fun fact for you. Jim Crow ... laws ... were government. Didn't know that, did you?

Government has no legitimate power either to force nor deny it's citizens from engaging in business transactions.

Here's a fun fact for you. That...is...irrelevant. Pointing to an example where government did its job poorly and then saying "well guess government doesn't have the right to do anything" is just not a constructive argument.

So in response to government forcing people to do business with gays, you brought up that government forced people to not do business with blacks as a rebuttal. My pointing out that is government both time is irrelevant. Got it. Liberals trying to do logic always cracks me up.

Obviously, its not. The States have authority over Intra-state commerce. Its reasonable and within their authority to establish minimum standards of conduct for those engaged in commerce. Namely, that those conducting commerce with the public within their state treat their customers fairly and equally.

The State can and does fine them if they violate these minimum standards.

That doesn't contradict what I said.

You said the State was irrelevant to the issue. You're wrong. Given that the State has both the authority and a rational reason to apply that authority, PA laws are immediately relevant. As the fines applied to businesses that violate the PA laws demonstrate.

Its both reasonable and legal for the States to mandate minimum standards of fairness and equality from those who are conducting business with the public.

 

[Syriusly]

So you are in favor of people being able to refuse to serve black people on religious grounds? Say, at a lunch counter?

Racial discrimination is prohibited. Lifestyle discrimination is not when it comes to marriage. Read the Constitution. .

Hmmm nowhere in the Constitution does it say that racial discrimination is prohibited. The Constitution does prohibit governmental discrimination based upon race- but not private discrimination.

Once again- you just make stuff up.