Vance Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 47 minutes ago, california boy said: If judge Walker was the ONLY judge to rule on gay marriage then you might have a point. But this issue was ruled on by Federal and District judges across the country in numerous states including by a Mormon judge in Utah as well as the United States Supreme Court. All but one judge ruled that gay couples have the constitutional right to marry just like everyone else. I don't know what history you think I don't have a grasp on, but clearly the facts speak for themselves. HELLO. The topic is Prop 8. You know the one you were whining about the Churches involvement in helping to pass. The one that was overturned by a gay judge. Talk about MOVING THE GOAL POSTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ALarson Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Vance said: Yes, they lost the vote. Your snide remark not withstanding. My comment was "snide"? How ironic for you to state that I was simply stating a fact. In the end, SSM became legal. That's an ultimate win, not a loss for california boy's side. However, it is a loss for your's. As far as whining, you may want to stop complaining about that here too. I'm quite sure that SSM being legal is here to stay. Edited October 7, 2017 by ALarson
smac97 Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Vance said: I do know the distortions you are attempting to foist upon us here. ... When you are willing to acknowledge the truth and stop spewing lies, then let me know. I know strong feelings can arise on this and other topics, but let's strive for civility. Thanks, -Smac Edited October 7, 2017 by smac97 2
Vance Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Gray said: So I guess now conservatives are going to have to decide if this kind of behavior is acceptable. If it's acceptable for fundamentalist cake bakers, it's acceptable for gay coffee shop owners. So I guess now liberals are going to have to decide if this kind of behavior is acceptable. If it's acceptable for gay coffee shop owners, it's acceptable for "fundamentalist" cake bakers (sans the vulgar offensive hate filled language). Edited October 7, 2017 by Vance
Vance Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 1 minute ago, ALarson said: My comment was "snide"? How ironic for you to state that I was simply stating a fact. In the end, SSM became legal. That's a win, not a loss for that side. His complaint was Prop 8, which they LOST!!! The fact that they were able to thwart the will of the American people through judicial tyranny is not what I would call a good thing.
Vance Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 (edited) On 10/5/2017 at 5:12 PM, california boy said: I consider the church's Prop 8 actions as an example of a church trying to force others to conform to their beliefs.. Just because the church doesn't believe in gay marriage doesn't mean they should work to take away the civil rights of gay couples away. It was wrong. Let us not forget where we started. Exactly who is trying to force who to conform? Edited October 7, 2017 by Vance
ALarson Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Vance said: His complaint was Prop 8, which they LOST!!! No, it was ultimately overturned. That's a win. (And, I've seen no one here claim that it wasn't originally voted in by popular vote....so move on from that claim ) Edited October 7, 2017 by ALarson 1
thesometimesaint Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 16 hours ago, Vance said: No one was trying "to take away the civil rights of" anyone. Defending the historic and natural definition of marriage doesn't disturb "the civil rights" of anyone. The historic and natural definition of marriage is nothing to be proud of. SEE Loving vs Virginia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia 1
Gray Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 1 hour ago, Vance said: So I guess now liberals are going to have to decide if this kind of behavior is acceptable. If it's acceptable for gay coffee shop owners, it's acceptable for "fundamentalist" cake bakers (sans the vulgar offensive hate filled language). Indeed. (Hint: it's not acceptable) 1
Vance Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 4 hours ago, ALarson said: No, it was ultimately overturned. That's a win. (And, I've seen no one here claim that it wasn't originally voted in by popular vote....so move on from that claim ) The people spoke and his side LOST!!!! The fact that is was illegally overturned by a homosexual judge won't make it a win in the end.
Vance Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 3 hours ago, Gray said: Indeed. (Hint: it's not acceptable) I am just pointing out the HYPOCRISY of the homosexual/liberal agenda.
Vance Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 4 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: The historic and natural definition of marriage is nothing to be proud of. SEE Loving vs Virginia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia Virginia hardly constitutes "historic and natural".
Gray Posted October 7, 2017 Posted October 7, 2017 2 hours ago, Vance said: I am just pointing out the HYPOCRISY of the homosexual/liberal agenda. What hypocrisy would that be? Is it more hypocritical than the anti-gay/conservative agenda?
california boy Posted October 8, 2017 Posted October 8, 2017 (edited) 11 hours ago, Vance said: The people spoke and his side LOST!!!! The fact that is was illegally overturned by a homosexual judge won't make it a win in the end. So do you believe that Judge Walker is the ONLY judge that made a ruling on Prop 8? Do you also believe that the people can vote on laws that are unconstitutional and they should stand? Edited October 8, 2017 by california boy
Daniel2 Posted October 8, 2017 Author Posted October 8, 2017 And we have a court date... October 6, 2017 at 10:32 pm EDT | by Chris Johnson Supreme Court sets gay wedding cake arguments for Dec. 5 36 12 0 2 Google +2 2 The Supreme Court has scheduled gay wedding cake arguments for Dec. 5. (Photo by Bigstock) The U.S. Supreme Court has set Dec. 5 as the day for oral arguments on whether a Colorado baker has a First Amendment right to refuse to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples over religious objections. The high court announced Friday the case, known as Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, will be the first of two arguments on that day. Consideration of the case will mark the return of the U.S. Supreme Court to the issue of LGBT rights in the first major way since its milestone 2015 decision in favor of marriage equality nationwide. The case has been percolating in state and federal court for years. It came about after Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, refused to make a wedding cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins, a Colorado same-sex couple, in 2012 foe their wedding in Massachusetts. Phillips refused the wedding cake based on his religious beliefs, but said he would be happy to make and sell the couple other baked goods. In 2013, the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Colorado filed a lawsuit on behalf of the couple, alleging the bakery discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation under Colorado state law. An administrative judge ruled in favor of the same-sex couple — a decision the Colorado Court of Appeals upheld in 2015. Although the Colorado Supreme Court had declined to review these decisions and let them stand, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari, or agreed to take up the case, in June. The U.S. Justice Department has already weighed in on the case, siding with the Colorado baker in a friend-of-the-court brief on the basis that baking a wedding cake is inherently an act of expression and therefore refusing to same-sex couples is a protected right under the First Amendment.
provoman Posted October 8, 2017 Posted October 8, 2017 (edited) 18 hours ago, Vance said: Virginia hardly constitutes "historic and natural". What do you mean? Please see the following https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_miscegenation.svg What is the natural and historic definition of marriage, does it include polyandry and polygamy. Edited October 8, 2017 by provoman
LittleNipper Posted October 11, 2017 Posted October 11, 2017 On 10/7/2017 at 12:31 PM, ALarson said: My comment was "snide"? How ironic for you to state that I was simply stating a fact. In the end, SSM became legal. That's an ultimate win, not a loss for california boy's side. However, it is a loss for your's. As far as whining, you may want to stop complaining about that here too. I'm quite sure that SSM being legal is here to stay. I believe while SSM may remain acceptable to the government, I do believe that there is a possibility that dissenters may yet be allowed to openly voice their concerns without reprisals. And that privately owned businesses and religious organizations will be exempt from forced participation. Private organizations seem to be on the verge of not having to pay for birth control (due to religious reasons) through health care they may provide their employees. I see no difference regarding sexual promiscuity and sexual deviancy.
Daniel2 Posted October 11, 2017 Author Posted October 11, 2017 12 hours ago, LittleNipper said: I believe while SSM may remain acceptable to the government, I do believe that there is a possibility that dissenters may yet be allowed to openly voice their concerns without reprisals. And that privately owned businesses and religious organizations will be exempt from forced participation. Private organizations seem to be on the verge of not having to pay for birth control (due to religious reasons) through health care they may provide their employees. I see no difference regarding sexual promiscuity and sexual deviancy. As with any manner of legally-protected issue regarding freedom of religious belief, dissenters against marriage between same-sex couples have never lost their ability to openly voice their concerns or personal objections to it. As with any manner of legally-protected issue regarding freedom of speech, whether there are any reprisals depends on the circumstances. All "freedoms" have some inherent legal limitations, and there are some natural and potentially unavoidable ramifications (beyond the extent of the law) that may occur as a result of how we choose to exercise those freedoms. Religious organizations always have been and still are exempt from forced participation in any ceremony they object to. That hasn't changed. Recognizing civil marriage rights for same-sex couples hasn't changed the fact that businesses (including small, privately-owned businesses) have always been subject to government regulation and have had to comply with non-discrimination laws (prohibiting them from refusing their goods or services to anyone based on a protected class) for 50+ years. Oddly enough, one has called or considered the application of these laws as "forced participation" in the last 50 years until now. You're welcome to hold whatever views about sexual promiscuity and/or deviancy that you wish, as we all are. D 1
LittleNipper Posted October 12, 2017 Posted October 12, 2017 8 hours ago, Daniel2 said: As with any manner of legally-protected issue regarding freedom of religious belief, dissenters against marriage between same-sex couples have never lost their ability to openly voice their concerns or personal objections to it. As with any manner of legally-protected issue regarding freedom of speech, whether there are any reprisals depends on the circumstances. All "freedoms" have some inherent legal limitations, and there are some natural and potentially unavoidable ramifications (beyond the extent of the law) that may occur as a result of how we choose to exercise those freedoms. Religious organizations always have been and still are exempt from forced participation in any ceremony they object to. That hasn't changed. Recognizing civil marriage rights for same-sex couples hasn't changed the fact that businesses (including small, privately-owned businesses) have always been subject to government regulation and have had to comply with non-discrimination laws (prohibiting them from refusing their goods or services to anyone based on a protected class) for 50+ years. Oddly enough, one has called or considered the application of these laws as "forced participation" in the last 50 years until now. You're welcome to hold whatever views about sexual promiscuity and/or deviancy that you wish, as we all are. D Talk is cheap. To be able to live one's values is what Christians desire.
Daniel2 Posted October 12, 2017 Author Posted October 12, 2017 2 hours ago, LittleNipper said: Talk is cheap. To be able to live one's values is what Christians desire. No idea what you’re talking about.... If public accomodations laws requiring you to provide the same service to everyone, irrespective of their identity, without discriminating against others based on protected classifications violate your deeply held religious beliefs, you’re entirely free to pursue another line of business that doesn’t violate your religious conscience. Case closed. Religious freedom in tact. No one coerced. The end. 1
LittleNipper Posted October 12, 2017 Posted October 12, 2017 7 hours ago, Daniel2 said: No idea what you’re talking about.... If public accomodations laws requiring you to provide the same service to everyone, irrespective of their identity, without discriminating against others based on protected classifications violate your deeply held religious beliefs, you’re entirely free to pursue another line of business that doesn’t violate your religious conscience. Case closed. Religious freedom in tact. No one coerced. The end. I didn't write that law. I didn't vote for that law. Personal actions are far more important that being only able to say one disagrees. My prayer is that the Supreme Court will see the light and end the belief that real freedom only extends to what people can think.
california boy Posted October 12, 2017 Posted October 12, 2017 2 hours ago, LittleNipper said: I didn't write that law. I didn't vote for that law. Personal actions are far more important that being only able to say one disagrees. My prayer is that the Supreme Court will see the light and end the belief that real freedom only extends to what people can think. Just so that we don't confuse your position. You are in favor of not allowing Blacks to eat at the restaurant counter? You are in favor of christians being denied seating at a gay restaurant. You are in favor of Jews not being allowed into a grocery store. You stand for discrimination of any kind in businesses open to the public? You like being judged by store owners each and every time you go to purchase something. And that is the argument that is before the Supreme Court. I guess we will all see if this country wants to go back to a time where discrimination was a way of life for some who were the wrong color or wrong religion or wrong gender or wrong orientation. 1
Daniel2 Posted October 12, 2017 Author Posted October 12, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, LittleNipper said: I didn't write that law. I didn't vote for that law. Personal actions are far more important that being only able to say one disagrees. My prayer is that the Supreme Court will see the light and end the belief that real freedom only extends to what people can think. Well of course. I didn't write any law either, and I would presume that you likewise wouldn't have, unless you'd served as a member of legislature. Some laws are voted on, and others aren't. The checks and balances of our government all come into play as laws are weighted to ensure they are congruent with our constitutional principals. Whether we write the law or whether we voted for it or whether the law is in effect due to the legislature, judicial, or executive branches of our government, we obviously are bound by them so long as said laws are active. Some personal actions are allowable, and some are not. The freedom our constitution promotes allows some behaviors and prohibits some others. We are not a nation founded on Anarchy. But its gross hyperbole to suggest that our laws currently only reflect the notion that "real freedom only extends to what people can think." All of the above being said, there are two options for anyone that feels their freedoms are truly being violated: exercising the right we all have to seek redress through due process of law (as Masterpiece is doing), or, if the outcome isn't to anyone's liking, and any citizen of the U.S. truly believes our nation is unjust, find another alternative that does allow the freedoms you're seeking. I think you'll find that the United States does a pretty darn good job of protecting our freedoms and liberties. Edited October 12, 2017 by Daniel2 1
kiwi57 Posted October 12, 2017 Posted October 12, 2017 On 10/9/2017 at 5:35 AM, provoman said: What do you mean? Please see the following https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_miscegenation.svg What is the natural and historic definition of marriage, does it include polyandry and polygamy. Anti-miscegenation laws were radically different from one jurisdiction to another, even when such jurisdictions were close neighbours. They never had anything to do with the historic, natural view of marriage as the union of a man and a woman, and always had to do with the way particular societies viewed minority population groups.
kiwi57 Posted October 12, 2017 Posted October 12, 2017 6 hours ago, california boy said: Just so that we don't confuse your position. You are in favor of not allowing Blacks to eat at the restaurant counter? You are in favor of christians being denied seating at a gay restaurant. You are in favor of Jews not being allowed into a grocery store. You stand for discrimination of any kind in businesses open to the public? You like being judged by store owners each and every time you go to purchase something. I'm not LittleNipper. But it doesn't seem to me that he "stands for discrimination of any kind." Rather, I humbly suggest that he stands for business owners being permitted to make those decisions themselves, rather than having them made for them by the coercive power of the state. 6 hours ago, california boy said: And that is the argument that is before the Supreme Court. I guess we will all see if this country wants to go back to a time where discrimination was a way of life for some who were the wrong color or wrong religion or wrong gender or wrong orientation. I suggest that that is a false dilemma. As far as I can tell, the court is being asked to rule on whether the "right" to compel service trumps freedom of conscience. Perhaps it will instead revisit the question of whether privately owned businesses are really "public accommodations." The notion that hanging up a shingle and opening one's doors entails a surrendering of the right to freedom of association is a rather startling one to those of us who live in societies where freedom is lived more and talked about less.
Recommended Posts