Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[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.

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.

LOL, "us." Yes, little girl, there is an army of people behind you that you speak for. They are reading every word, cheering you on and saying wow, Sylar is speaking for me. I am part of his army.

Man up and speak for yourself. That is so sad.

So you can't show any law despite your endless claims that Christians only want Christian exemptions, not religious exemptions. When you can, get back to ... me. The person and only person I speak for. But I'm a man, that's all I need.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Read Beagle's posts throughout this thread. And Silhouette's for that matter.

Public Accommodation laws apply to all business's regardless of the religion of the owner of the business.

Both Beagle and Silhouette argue that Christians do not/should not have to follow public accommodation laws.

But PA apply equally to everyone, regardless of their religion.

 

[kaz]

That doesn't contradict what I said.

You said the State was irrelevant to the issue. You're wrong

I never said that. Show me the quote you are referring to.

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.

Begging the question. And again, you're turning the discussion into your socialist ideology again, get off it, every discussion doesn't need to be about socialism as you insist on turning it into.

 

[Syriusly]

...No one is challenging such bans on the grounds that the States lack the authority to define marriage. They are challenging the bans on the grounds that such bans violate constitutional guarantees. Every single federal ruling that has overturned gay marriage bans has done so on the basis of the violation of constitutional guarantees...

Yet none of them count because procedurally,

They all count- that is why people in love are getting married, even though the haters don't want them to.

 

[Skylar]

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.

So we're in agreement the States possess the authority over intra-state commerce sufficient to apply PA laws. Which throughly undermines your claim that the government was 'irrelevant'.

Irrelevant is being unrelated to the subject matter being considered. And government is immediately related to it.

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.
[/quote]

So you don't think PA laws should exist. Noted. However, your claim was that the government was irrelevant to the issue. And as both the existence of the laws, the authority, and their application demonstrate, government is immediately relevant to this issue.

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

Begging the question[/QUOTE]

How is that 'begging the question'? I don't think you know how that fallacy works.

 

[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.

Read Beagle's posts throughout this thread. And Silhouette's for that matter.

Public Accommodation laws apply to all business's regardless of the religion of the owner of the business.

Both Beagle and Silhouette argue that Christians do not/should not have to follow public accommodation laws.

But PA apply equally to everyone, regardless of their religion.

So based on two posters you claim that "Christians" want special treatment. That's too funny.

 

[Syriusly]

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

Then please lead the charge to repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

I am not convinced that public accommodation laws necessarily make any sense now- though I am convinced that when the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed, it was necessary then.

But you are in a thread that starts from a premise that churches will be forced to accommodate homosexual marriages- what is your position on the topic?

 

[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.

So we're in agreement the States possess the authority over intra-state commerce sufficient to apply PA laws. Which throughly undermines your claim that the government was 'irrelevant'.

Irrelevant is being unrelated to the subject matter being considered. And government is immediately related to it.

Strawman, I never said that. And begging the question, I already asked you to show what you are referring to. I never said government is "irrelevant" and i don't even know what you are talking about. Then neither do you.

So you don't think PA laws should exist. Noted. However, your claim was that the government was irrelevant to the issue. And as both the existence of the laws, the authority, and their application demonstrate, government is immediately relevant to this issue.

Strawman

How is that 'begging the question'? I don't think you know how that fallacy works.

It's begging the question because you reasserted the point in question as truth. If you don't know that's begging the question, you are the one who doesn't know how that fallacy works.

 

[Skylar]

That doesn't contradict what I said.

You said the State was irrelevant to the issue. You're wrong

I never said that. Show me the quote you are referring to.

Do you deny making this statement?

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.

Kaz

And you're wrong. Government is immediately relevant. The State possesses the authority to make such laws. They have made such laws. They have applied such laws.

Begging the question. And again, you're turning the discussion into your socialist ideology again, get off it, every discussion doesn't need to be about socialism as you insist on turning it into.

You're simply interpreting anything you disagree with as 'socialist ideology'. As you do in every conversation. We're not discussing socialism. We're discussing churches being forced to accommodate gay weddings.

And again, you don't seem to understand what 'begging the question' is. It appears to be like your conception of socialism; merely a random pejorative you apply to what you don't like.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Read Beagle's posts throughout this thread. And Silhouette's for that matter.

Public Accommodation laws apply to all business's regardless of the religion of the owner of the business.

Both Beagle and Silhouette argue that Christians do not/should not have to follow public accommodation laws.

But PA apply equally to everyone, regardless of their religion.

So based on two posters you claim that "Christians" want special treatment. That's too funny.

You really are a troll- aren't you?

Here is what the poster originally said

And that's what some Christians are lamenting over.

Silhouette and Beagle= 'some Christians'

 

[Syriusly]

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.

LOL, "us." Yes, little girl, there is an army of people behind you that you speak for. They are reading every word, cheering you on and saying wow, Sylar is speaking for me. I am part of his army.

Man up and speak for yourself. That is so sad.

So you can't show any law despite your endless claims that Christians only want Christian exemptions, not religious exemptions. When you can, get back to ... me. The person and only person I speak for. But I'm a man, that's all I need.

What a troll.

 

[kaz]

Then please lead the charge to repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

I am not convinced that public accommodation laws necessarily make any sense now- though I am convinced that when the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed, it was necessary then.

The 1964 civil rights act was a flagrant violation of the 10th amendment

But you are in a thread that starts from a premise that churches will be forced to accommodate homosexual marriages- what is your position on the topic?

Obviously the State has no business forcing churches to do anything. I like how when I respond to something you feel is off topic, you come to me and ignore what i was responding to.

 

[Paperman299]

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.

 

[kaz]

You said the State was irrelevant to the issue. You're wrong

I never said that. Show me the quote you are referring to.

Do you deny making this statement?

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.

OMG, you are illiterate. I was pointing out YOU said that and mocking you for that. Wow. Liberals are so dumb you never even recognize when you are being mocked. In your minds, you are always the smartest guy in the room.

 

[kaz]

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.

Kaz

And you're wrong. Government is immediately relevant. The State possesses the authority to make such laws. They have made such laws. They have applied such laws.

I'm not wrong, I didn't say government was irrelevant, you can't read.

You're simply interpreting anything you disagree with as 'socialist ideology'. As you do in every conversation. We're not discussing socialism. We're discussing churches being forced to accommodate gay weddings.

Ding, ding, ding! I am a small government libertarian. I argue in discussions we don't need government to do that and you hold me to a completely different standard than you do for yourself. You always advocate government. I usually oppose government. The former is OK (to you), the latter is not.

 

[kaz]

Strawman, I never said that. And begging the question, I already asked you to show what you are referring to. I never said government is "irrelevant" and i don't even know what you are talking about. Then neither do you.

Except when you did:

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.

Kaz

This is a statement you made less than an hour again. It seems I'm better at quoting you than you are.

Reading is your issue.

I didn't say that as my view, I said it in mocking your response to my statement. You are seriously not a bright guy. If you disagree with my view, that's fine, you can argue that. But this is a case you can't read. Go back to the original post and try reading it again.

 

[Skylar]

Ding, ding, ding! I am a small government libertarian. I argue in discussions we don't need government to do that and you hold me to a completely different standard than you do for yourself. You always advocate government. I usually oppose government. The former is OK (to you), the latter is not.

I argue that the State has every authority to make PA laws (which you don't dispute) and that its reasonable for the State to require minimum standards of fairness and equality of those conducting business with the public in the State.

 

[kaz]

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.

Read Beagle's posts throughout this thread. And Silhouette's for that matter.

Public Accommodation laws apply to all business's regardless of the religion of the owner of the business.

Both Beagle and Silhouette argue that Christians do not/should not have to follow public accommodation laws.

But PA apply equally to everyone, regardless of their religion.

So based on two posters you claim that "Christians" want special treatment. That's too funny.

You really are a troll- aren't you?

Here is what the poster originally said

And that's what some Christians are lamenting over.

Silhouette and Beagle= 'some Christians'

You're the troll. That is such a nit picking argument. And your expectation I read 120 pages before I post is pathetic and a standard you clearly don't apply to yourself or other liberals.

 

[kaz]

Ding, ding, ding! I am a small government libertarian. I argue in discussions we don't need government to do that and you hold me to a completely different standard than you do for yourself. You always advocate government. I usually oppose government. The former is OK (to you), the latter is not.

I argue that the State has every authority to make PA laws (which you don't dispute)

Correct

and that its reasonable for the State to require minimum standards of fairness and equality of those conducting business with the public in the State.

Yes, that's the discussion. Maybe you can participate now that you're clear on the question.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Read Beagle's posts throughout this thread. And Silhouette's for that matter.

Public Accommodation laws apply to all business's regardless of the religion of the owner of the business.

Both Beagle and Silhouette argue that Christians do not/should not have to follow public accommodation laws.

But PA apply equally to everyone, regardless of their religion.

So based on two posters you claim that "Christians" want special treatment. That's too funny.

You really are a troll- aren't you?

Here is what the poster originally said

And that's what some Christians are lamenting over.

Silhouette and Beagle= 'some Christians'

You're the troll. That is such a nit picking argument. And your expectation I read 120 pages before I post is pathetic and a standard you clearly don't apply to yourself or other liberals.

You were the one who ignorantly jumped into a thread- and didn't know what the hell you were talking about.

Like I said- you are a troll- you show up and want to derail a thread just because you just like picking crap fights over nothing.

You haven't brought anything to this thread other than personal attacks and promoting your own libertarian agenda.