Jump to content

Respect for Marriage Act passes with Bi-partisan support.


AU9377

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Please tell me the difference between discrimination of a gay couple compared to a black couple?

If you can’t figure it out, I can’t help you.  You can’t answer my question?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites





6 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

If you can’t figure it out, I can’t help you.  You can’t answer my question?

So you can't tell me the difference? Good, because there is none.

And that's the answer to your question.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/3/2022 at 12:12 PM, homersapien said:

Do you think Gays advocating or demanding equal treatment under the law as citizens is "forcing their ideology" on other people?

I think you're highlighting a very solid point. Many on the right have advocated, over the course of time, valid concerns regarding federalism when it comes to certain Supreme Court declarations, be it homosexual marriage, abortion, the death penalty, assisted suicide, or any other hot button topic. But to then raise up arms when the citizens (democratically through their elected officials) pass laws on the same topics is a plain, irreconcilable contradiction.

  • Dislike 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I think you're highlighting a very solid point. Many on the right have advocated, over the course of time, valid concerns regarding federalism when it comes to certain Supreme Court declarations, be it homosexual marriage, abortion, the death penalty, assisted suicide, or any other hot button topic. But to then raise up arms when the citizens (democratically through their elected officials) pass laws on the same topics is a plain, irreconcilable contradiction.

Being black is immutable, being gay is immutable; is gay marriage immutable also?  I would think not and that is the stance of the web designer from Colorado. She is not refusing gays from her web design business, just gay marriage as I understand it.  It similar to the baker from Colorado.

The Colorado lawyer is trying to tie interracial marriage into his argument, but this has noting to do with that.

This issue is the proposed law may or may not protect religious freedom and free speech.  If it doesn’t it would be forcing everybody to celebrate something they are not comfortable doing, is it not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Being black is immutable, being gay is immutable; is gay marriage immutable also?  I would think not and that is the stance of the web designer from Colorado. She is not refusing gays from her web design business, just gay marriage as I understand it.  It similar to the baker from Colorado.

The Colorado lawyer is trying to tie interracial marriage into his argument, but this has noting to do with that.

This issue is the proposed law may or may not protect religious freedom and free speech.  If it doesn’t it would be forcing everybody to celebrate something they are not comfortable doing, is it not?

So question, since marriage isn't a given to last forever and that seems to be the premise of your argument, do you think it would be okay for a baker to refuse service a married, black, straight couple because of the baker's religious beliefs? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, arein0 said:

So question, since marriage isn't a given to last forever and that seems to be the premise of your argument, do you think it would be okay for a baker to refuse service a married, black, straight couple because of the baker's religious beliefs? 

That isn’t what is stated.  The Colorado attorney is trying to make that case, but it doesn’t matter.  If the marriage is between a man and a woman, no matter what the race I believe the baker and web designer would sell their works.  If not, clearly discriminatory.

Do you know this is the baker’s and web designer’s beliefs.  Nothing is ever given in this world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/30/2022 at 5:58 PM, PUB78 said:

Trying to legalize perversion.

How very Christian of you.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, I_M4_AU said:

That isn’t what is stated.  The Colorado attorney is trying to make that case, but it doesn’t matter.  If the marriage is between a man and a woman, no matter what the race I believe the baker and web designer would sell their works.  If not, clearly discriminatory.

Do you know this is the baker’s and web designer’s beliefs.  Nothing is ever given in this world.

That's not what I was asking, and you are missing the point. The point is, they are using Religion as a justification for discriminating gays, and that's not okay. If this were to pass, you are opening Pandoras Box to further allow discrimination. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/1/2022 at 8:47 AM, CoffeeTiger said:

And that's fine if you believe that in your church and in your family, but you can't make laws forcing everyone to believe and live the same way you choose to. 

separation of church and state, who needs it!

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, arein0 said:

That's not what I was asking, and you are missing the point. The point is, they are using Religion as a justification for discriminating gays, and that's not okay. If this were to pass, you are opening Pandoras Box to further allow discrimination. 

They are okay with that. They want Pandora's box opened. At least some of them do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Didba said:

They are okay with that. They want Pandora's box opened. At least some of them do.

That's unfortunate. I was hoping we would learn and grow from our ancestors mistakes. It shouldn't be this hard to treat all humans as equals.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/1/2022 at 11:12 AM, I_M4_AU said:

The *government actors* is the problem.  The baker in Denver and the like will be swinging in the wind.  He has beliefs that he has that is protected in the Constitution.  The Constitution does not say you can only have religious beliefs on in church.  They declined to protect the individual right to religious freedom.  We shall see how it goes in the house, which is why its being brought up in the lame duck session.

Isn’t there a clause in the bill allowing people to sue?  Why would that be specially highlighted in a bill, isn’t that understood.

Didn’t the 2015 Supreme Court decision allow this?  How do you force people to not hate and/or discriminate?   Has that ever worked?  I guess if you threaten to sue it would help.

The Baker situation doesn't really apply since SCOTUS punted on that one. Just fyi.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/1/2022 at 1:35 PM, I_M4_AU said:

If people are not free to worship their religion, are they really free. Is taking away a constitutional right the answer to freedom?

Freedom of Religion does not equal Freedom to Discriminate.  It means you can practice your religion how you see fit without it affecting others and free from the government discriminating against you by shutting down your churches/persecuting your leaders, etc.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, arein0 said:

That's not what I was asking, and you are missing the point. The point is, they are using Religion as a justification for discriminating gays, and that's not okay. If this were to pass, you are opening Pandoras Box to further allow discrimination. 

No, you’re missing the point. You’re assuming the baker is discriminating against gay when he is just denying service to a gay couple wanting to get married because of his religious beliefs  

Like I said, if they denied service because they are gay or black, for that matter, it would be discriminatory and would have not made it to the SCOTUS.

  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Didba said:

The Baker situation doesn't really apply since SCOTUS punted on that one. Just fyi.

How do you feel about the freedom of speech argument going through the court now?

The Supreme Court heard oral argument on Monday in the case of Lorie Smith, a website designer and devout Christian who wants to expand her business to include wedding websites – but only for opposite-sex couples. Smith is challenging a Colorado law that prohibits most businesses from discriminating against LGBTQ customers. Requiring her to create websites for same-sex weddings, she argues, would violate her right to freedom of speech.

At the oral argument, Justice Sonia Sotomayor asserted that a ruling for Smith would be the first time that the Supreme Court had ruled that “commercial businesses could refuse to serve a customer based on race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation.” But Chief Justice John Roberts countered that the Supreme Court has never approved efforts to compel speech that is contrary to the speaker’s belief, and his five conservative colleagues signaled that they were likely to join him in a ruling for Smith.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/12/conservative-justices-seem-poised-to-side-with-web-designer-who-opposes-same-sex-marriage/

And I know they punted, but we have a new case now, your thoughts

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Didba said:

Freedom of Religion does not equal Freedom to Discriminate.  It means you can practice your religion how you see fit without it affecting others and free from the government discriminating against you by shutting down your churches/persecuting your leaders, etc.

Following one’s religion is not limited to the physical church.  If a person that owns a business discriminates again their customer base, they won’t last long in business.  Maybe in a limited rural area, but not in a well populated area.

Edited by I_M4_AU
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Being black is immutable, being gay is immutable; is gay marriage immutable also?  I would think not and that is the stance of the web designer from Colorado. She is not refusing gays from her web design business, just gay marriage as I understand it.  It similar to the baker from Colorado.

The Colorado lawyer is trying to tie interracial marriage into his argument, but this has noting to do with that.

This issue is the proposed law may or may not protect religious freedom and free speech.  If it doesn’t it would be forcing everybody to celebrate something they are not comfortable doing, is it not?

You again run into the Equal Protection clause. As marriage is a State right regardless of gender, both must be treated equally. Therefore, if the baker makes a wedding cake for straight couples, he must also make them for gay couples. If he refuses to make one for gay couples, he must also refuse straight couples. The same applies for the case of the web designer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

If a person that owns a business discriminates again their customer base, they won’t last long in business.  

Not true at all when there are still plenty who support that discrimination.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

No, you’re missing the point. You’re assuming the baker is discriminating against gay when he is just denying service to a gay couple wanting to get married because of his religious beliefs  

Like I said, if they denied service because they are gay or black, for that matter, it would be discriminatory and would have not made it to the SCOTUS.

So discrimination on the basis of one's religious beliefs is not actual discrimination? :dunno:

Such logic has been used throughout history to justify evil behavior.  

Praise Jesus!  :-\

Edited by homersapien
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

How do you feel about the freedom of speech argument going through the court now?

The Supreme Court heard oral argument on Monday in the case of Lorie Smith, a website designer and devout Christian who wants to expand her business to include wedding websites – but only for opposite-sex couples. Smith is challenging a Colorado law that prohibits most businesses from discriminating against LGBTQ customers. Requiring her to create websites for same-sex weddings, she argues, would violate her right to freedom of speech.

At the oral argument, Justice Sonia Sotomayor asserted that a ruling for Smith would be the first time that the Supreme Court had ruled that “commercial businesses could refuse to serve a customer based on race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation.” But Chief Justice John Roberts countered that the Supreme Court has never approved efforts to compel speech that is contrary to the speaker’s belief, and his five conservative colleagues signaled that they were likely to join him in a ruling for Smith.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/12/conservative-justices-seem-poised-to-side-with-web-designer-who-opposes-same-sex-marriage/

And I know they punted, but we have a new case now, your thoughts

Playing games right now but I'll check back in on this and give this a read

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

No, you’re missing the point. You’re assuming the baker is discriminating against gay when he is just denying service to a gay couple wanting to get married because of his religious beliefs  

Like I said, if they denied service because they are gay or black, for that matter, it would be discriminatory and would have not made it to the SCOTUS.

That fact has already been established or it wouldn't have made it to SCOTUS imo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

No, you’re missing the point. You’re assuming the baker is discriminating against gay when he is just denying service to a gay couple wanting to get married because of his religious beliefs  

Like I said, if they denied service because they are gay or black, for that matter, it would be discriminatory and would have not made it to the SCOTUS.

Isnt that still discrimination though? Having religious beliefs doesnt excuse people discriminating others. It is discriminatory because the baker would bake a wedding cake for a straight couple but not a gay couple. I dont see how you cant see that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/29/2022 at 9:28 PM, AU9377 said:

With 12 Republican senators voting in support, the bill goes back to the House, where it will pass again and then be signed by the President.  This bill was well written.  It relies on the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, which will make an attempt to have it overturned by the courts very difficult.

On 11/30/2022 at 6:58 PM, PUB78 said:

Trying to legalize perversion.

On 12/1/2022 at 3:42 PM, Leftfield said:

I understand faith is not limited to time in Church, but how is making a cake for someone a show of support for how they live their life?

On 12/1/2022 at 4:45 PM, I_M4_AU said:

There is a nuance that you are missing.  I don’t believe this baker hates gays, it is just his belief he would be going against his belief system if he used his talents to bake a cake for them as a gay couple (gender reveal) person.  He must be very sincere as his story went up to the Supreme Court.

Tried to quote a few that I saw, with the conversation being religion freedoms vs marriage freedoms....

 

Is there anything in this act that covers polygamy?  Basically combining the subjects together for a minority of Americans.

It's marriage, it's part of their religious beliefs.... were they left out or included in this  "respect for marriage" act?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...