Ted Cruz Says SCOTUS 'Clearly Wrong' to Legalize Gay Marriage

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I've stated several times that I don't view it as discrimination because there's no evidence of animosity. I've also said that cotus protects free exercise of religion. Those are how I've refuted your arguments.

Animosity is not a requirement to prove discrimination. It is all about the behavior towards others-not motive. Your claim that the free excercise of reoigion isprotected- which I agree with- DOES NOT refute my position that discrimination is NOT protected

 

[ThisIsMe]

Complete and utter horseshit! They are forcing their gay lifestyle on the baker.? When and how did they try to make Phillips gay

You said "I don't believe anyone has the right to discriminate," and that this is not discrimination. More bullshit. State law says that it is discrimination.

I didn't say they are trying to make him gay. Forcing oneself onto another doesn't mean you're trying to convert then to something.

'I feel slighted because you refused service to make a cake for my gay wedding so I'm going to disregard your cotus religious rights and take you to court and get the state to force you to make my gay wedding cake, or your going to pay me money' is also a way of forcing their lifestyle on someone.

State law says that it is discrimination.

Sure, it does say that, but, as I said before, freedom to exercise and practice ones religion is one of those cotus rights, the right to the free exercise of one's religion. If one's religion says that homosexuality is a sin, and therfore by you using your labor in service to that sin, it is a violation of biblical teachings, then one cannot be forced to do that because of couts protections.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Bottom line. They did not rule that there was no discrimination. Another such case is likely to have a different outcome at SCOTUS

But they didn't rule that there was discrimination either. They never got to that.

We won't know the outcome until we have a case decided based on freedom of religion vs gay rights.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I'm not reading through this while thread, especially at well over a thousand postings.

But I'm curious as to how precisely the Supreme Court legalized anything.

Since when does the Supreme Court make Law? And by what authority?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

view discrimination as an act of hate, an act where there has to be hate, animosity, or malice must be present. If those things are not there, then it's not discrimination.

Tht is IDIOTIC! Look, I am out of here for a few days .Eye surgury in the morning. I don;t suppose that you will have learned anything by the time I get back

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I'm not reading through this while thread, especially at well over a thousand postings.

But I'm curious as to how precisely the Supreme Court legalized anything.

Since when does the Supreme Court make Law? And by what authority?

They invalidated unconstitutional states laws. Not the same thing

 

[ThisIsMe]

Not true. I value religious rights, I just have a different understanding of what that means. That is why we will never agree and why this whole thing is an excercise in futility. My reference to religous psychosis is about extreme religosity whhich you seem to represent

The reason why you feel its extreme is because this whole argument from you comes from a position of emotion. In your mind, if someone refuses service to a gay couple, it's because of hate. I simply take emotion out of it and look at it as the baker refusing service to a gay couple for the same reason he would refuse service to any other person who came in and asked him to use his labor in service to any other sin. It doesn't mean he hates the person, or has anything against then personally, just they can't use their labor in service to something that goes against his religious beliefs.


I understand you view them differently. It's apparent you view them as being below civil rights and state PA laws, but freedom to exercise religion is also a civil right.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Have you seen his essay, expressing a fantasy about space aliens offering to impose their rule over Earth?

The first condition he envisions them imposing, in order to create his idea of a utopian world, is…

​

​

​

First step toward TheOppressiveFaggot's ideal world is drug-based brainwashing to “cleanse the mind” of religious beliefs.​

​

This, in and of itself, tells us just about all we need to know of the mental and moral character of one who would conceive such a fantasy, and try to depict it in a positive way.​

​

The rest of his essay doesn't get any better.​

Huh. Well, that certainly explains his adverseness to religious freedom.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Tht is IDIOTIC! Look, I am out of here for a few days .Eye surgury in the morning. I don;t suppose that you will have learned anything by the time I get back

Well, ask yourself why we have discrimination laws. Because at some point, people were excluding people because of their dislike of those people, on a personal level, because some people felt others were inferior on some level. The point is, discrimination laws were made due to personal animosity between people.

That's one reason why I say that for discrimination to exist, that hate and animosity has to be there.

Good luck on your surgery, hope it all comes out OK. I too will be in surgery in the next few weeks.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Animosity is not a requirement to prove discrimination. It is all about the behavior towards others-not motive. Your claim that the free excercise of reoigion isprotected- which I agree with- DOES NOT refute my position that discrimination is NOT protected

I simply refuted that it was discrimination based on the lack of animosity. The same as if a baker refused anyone else based on them asking them to help them commit a sin. He would (or should) refuse that as well.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I simply refuted that it was discrimination based on the lack of animosity. The same as if a baker refused anyone else based on them asking them to help them commit a sin. He would (or should) refuse that as well.

Of course! This is what you do all the time. I make a point. Then you stomp your feet and insist that I am wrong and claim that you refuted what I said without any evidence to support your claim.

There is NOTHING about animosity in the definition of discrimination:

dis·crim·i·na·tion
[dəˌskriməˈnāSH(ə)n]

NOUN

1. the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of ethnicity, age, sex, or disability:
   "victims of racial discrimination"

If your baker simply acted out of a sense of misguided religious obligation -It is still DISCRIMINATION. You have refuted nothing

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Well, ask yourself why we have discrimination laws. Because at some point, people were excluding people because of their dislike of those people, on a personal level, because some people felt others were inferior on some level. The point is, discrimination laws were made due to personal animosity between people.

That's one reason why I say that for discrimination to exist, that hate and animosity has to be there.

Good luck on your surgery, hope it all comes out OK. I too will be in surgery in the next few weeks.

Discrimination laws are to combat discrimination, FOR ANY REASON. You just invent shit and present it as fack, and then bleat about how it makes you right.If you treat a member of a minority group badly or unfairly it is discrimination. Don't believe me? Do you offer a service or a product to the public? Next time a minority person comes in, tell them that can't serve them, not because you have a problem with them, but because God says that you can't. Let us know how that works out as a defense when you are sued or charged under the law

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Huh. Well, that certainly explains his adverseness to religious freedom.

Only to your version of religious freedom

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The reason why you feel its extreme is because this whole argument from you comes from a position of emotion. In your mind, if someone refuses service to a gay couple, it's because of hate. I simply take emotion out of it and look at it as the baker refusing service to a gay couple for the same reason he would refuse service to any other person who came in and asked him to use his labor in service to any other sin. It doesn't mean he hates the person, or has anything against then personally, just they can't use their labor in service to something that goes against his religious beliefs.


I understand you view them differently. It's apparent you view them as being below civil rights and state PA laws, but freedom to exercise religion is also a civil right.

Good fucking grief! The predictable fall back position when all else fails. Accusing you adversary of being emotional. The fact is that I have been consistently rational and objective. You on the other hand continually whine and bleat about hate and animosity and that discrimination absent those factors is not discrimination. At the same time, you have been struggling to convince me that your assertions are fact based and anything more than YOUR emotions taking over. Lastly for now, there is no conflict between state laws against discrimination and religious liberty when one subscribes to a rational and UNEMOTIONAL view of religious liberty '

PS Unfortuatly for you, having had the surgery, there is not much more that I can do for a while besides read and write .Watch out

 

[ThisIsMe]

Of course! This is what you do all the time. I make a point. Then you stomp your feet and insist that I am wrong and claim that you refuted what I said without any evidence to support your claim.

There is NOTHING about animosity in the definition of discrimination:

dis·crim·i·na·tion
[dəˌskriməˈnāSH(ə)n]

NOUN

1. the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of ethnicity, age, sex, or disability:
   "victims of racial discrimination"

If your baker simply acted out of a sense of misguided religious obligation -It is still DISCRIMINATION. You have refuted nothing

What is discrimination? Why do we have discrimination laws. Why do people discriminate? I asked you this before. All of this was done because of unfair and prejudicial treatment of other people. Those laws were passed because of hate, not just because a difference of opinion.

Your version of it would mean that people would never be able to refuse service to anyone, because it would be discrimination.

Question.....do discrimination laws protect white people, and straight people?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Discrimination laws are to combat discrimination, FOR ANY REASON. You just invent shit and present it as fack, and then bleat about how it makes you right.If you treat a member of a minority group badly or unfairly it is discrimination. Don't believe me? Do you offer a service or a product to the public? Next time a minority person comes in, tell them that can't serve them, not because you have a problem with them, but because God says that you can't. Let us know how that works out as a defense when you are sued or charged under the law

If you treat a member of a minority group badly or unfairly it is discrimination.

Agreed, but did the baker treat them badly? Or unfairly? Likely he would refuse anyone who asked them to help them commit a sin. Like I mentioned earlier, if someone asked him to bake a cake for a swingers convention, he would refuse. Now, would you call that discrimination? I mean, you have the freedom and right to swing if you so choose. I wouldn't see anyone making a fuss over that.

I know I know...your next statement is "but that has nothing to do with being gay", well, being gay, and swinging with your buddies wife are both your rights, are they not? Yet, you would only accuse the baker of discrimination because of the gay couple. Why?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Discrimination laws are to combat discrimination, FOR ANY REASON. You just invent shit and present it as fack, and then bleat about how it makes you right.If you treat a member of a minority group badly or unfairly it is discrimination. Don't believe me? Do you offer a service or a product to the public? Next time a minority person comes in, tell them that can't serve them, not because you have a problem with them, but because God says that you can't. Let us know how that works out as a defense when you are sued or charged under the law

Next time a minority person comes in, tell them that can't serve them, not because you have a problem with them, but because God says that you can't.

We've been through this, Christianity doesn't say being a minority is a sin, so this scenario would never happen.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Only to your version of religious freedom

Apparently to all religion, judging by that post you made. You want the aliens to suck all that religious stuff out of peoples heads. It's pretty clear your stance on religion.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Good fucking grief! The predictable fall back position when all else fails. Accusing you adversary of being emotional. The fact is that I have been consistently rational and objective. You on the other hand continually whine and bleat about hate and animosity and that discrimination absent those factors is not discrimination. At the same time, you have been struggling to convince me that your assertions are fact based and anything more than YOUR emotions taking over. Lastly for now, there is no conflict between state laws against discrimination and religious liberty when one subscribes to a rational and UNEMOTIONAL view of religious liberty '

PS Unfortuatly for you, having had the surgery, there is not much more that I can do for a while besides read and write .Watch out

Accusing you adversary of being emotiona

I'm not accusing you of being emotional, per se, I'm just saying the whole argument you are making is because the whole topic of the baker refusing the gay couple is based on an emotional response. The gay couple felt slighted because of perceived hate toward them. The whole idea if discrimination is emotion based. People get upset because they get hurt feelings because someone denied them something, again, because they feel some form of animosity or hate was committed against them.

You on the other hand continually whine and bleat about hate and animosity and that discrimination absent those factors is not discrimination.

Let's be clear, between the two of us, it's not me doing the whining. You have been thr one, over the past, over a week now, who has been getting emotional, lashing out, dropping the F bomb here and there and accusing me of being stupid. I have treated you calmly and with respect. You disagree with me, and that is your right, I respect that.

At the same time, you have been struggling to convince me that your assertions are fact

Trying to convince you of anything would be futile, I realize that now. At this point, all I can do is assert my point of view.

YOUR emotions taking over.

No emotion here, as I said before, I just take the emotion out of it and see it for what it is.

Lastly for now, there is no conflict between state laws against discrimination and religious liberty when one subscribes to a rational and UNEMOTIONAL view of religious liberty '

Bible says not to be a part of helping someone else in the commission of a sin, so, how do you reconcile that against state laws? Do we simply say that we need to ignore the Bible and the bakers religious rights in favor of the gay couples rights?

PS Unfortuatly for you, having had the surgery, there is not much more that I can do for a while besides read and write .Watch out

Good deal.

Watch out

YES SIR!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Question.....do discrimination laws protect white people, and straight people?

Yes they do. Have you actually read the laws. They do not specifically prohibit discrimination against gays or blacks or whatever. They prohibit discrimination against ANYONE on the basis of race, sexual orientation, etc. So a black person who discriminates against a white person is also subjected to the law Did you really not know that ? Seriously?