Respect for Marriage Act passes with Bi-partisan support.

[Leftfield 2,595]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

You would have to ask the baker his thoughts, I’m do not have his dedication.  I can only guess that he is an artist and being so has to have inspiration to perform his art.

Surprised he hasn't used that argument yet. I'm sure it will go over wonderfully with a jury.

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Evidently he is very good.  The doctor analogy is apples to oranges.  A doctor is obligated to improve your health, a baker is obligated to bake you something, but it is not life or death and it is his/her business. 

So you're ok with unequal treatment under the law?

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

  This baker came out and told the truth straight up and continues to do so.  He is honest to a fault. And for this he is being hounded because some people don’t like his beliefs.  Same with Chick fil a.

I'm certain some people are hounding him, and I don't condone that, but I'm not saying a word against his beliefs. He is free to believe what he wishes. He is not free to withhold his services from someone due to who they are.

 

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Which is better?  One that doesn’t want to serve you because they have a deep religious view contrary to your beliefs, or one that is so self centered that they will sue you if you don’t agree with their way of thinking?

The former, but this is a false argument because that's not what's happening. It's not that he's refusing service because the customer has different beliefs. He's refusing service because the customer is a homosexual. Homosexuality is not a "belief." And the customer was suing because it's a civil rights violation, not because they're self-centered.

 

Edited December 2, 2022 by Leftfield

[Leftfield 2,595]

4 minutes ago, PUB78 said:

I already have shelter. How about you?

Got a pretty good North Face coat on. It's a bit nippy up here now, though overall a really mild fall for us.

[CoffeeTiger 5,107]

26 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

 

The hating gays is a byproduct of the LGBTQ+oi9widne Coalition’s stance of; if you’re not with us you’re against us mantra.  There is no live and let live anymore.

Well this is categorically false, because Religious people have hated, tortured and discriminated against Gay people for much of human history. Especially in Abrahamic Religious dominated societies. 

It's only been recently that acceptance towards gays and giving them rights have even become a thing in society. 

 

The problem with you're "live and let live" mantra is that its never been true, and till very recently,  society only "accepted" gay people when the gays were in the closet, not allowed to marry, not given rights. 

That was what people considered "live and let live" Christians/straight people have full right and gay people don't...but are allowed to live and not immediately put to death. 

Not that lgbtq people are asking and demanding equal rights under the law...you see that as a threat and as them "imposing" themselves on you when in reality its them trying to undo historical and institutional wrongs. 

Edited December 1, 2022 by CoffeeTiger

[I_M4_AU 7,810]

1 minute ago, Leftfield said:

Surprised he hasn't used that argument yet. I'm sure it will go over wonderfully with a jury.

As I said; I can only guess.  I do not know his mind.

 

1 minute ago, Leftfield said:

So you're ok with unequal treatment under the law?

Who said that?  The law is about to change and then this baker can make his case, because you know it’s coming.

5 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

He is not free to withhold their services from someone due to who they are.

He has so far with the blessings of the court system.  As said before; its about to change.

 

6 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

The former, but this is a false argument because that's not what's happening. It's not that he's refusing service because the customer has different beliefs. He's refusing service because the customer is a homosexual. Homosexuality is not a "belief." And the customer was suing because it's a civil rights violation, not because they're self-centered.

He refused to bake a cake because of his beliefs, not that his customer was a homosexual.  Its a nuance, l know, but the courts seemed to agree that he was not discriminating or at least he was within his rights.

[I_M4_AU 7,810]

On 12/1/2022 at 5:12 PM, CoffeeTiger said:

It's only been recently that acceptance towards gays and giving them rights have even become a thing in society. 

 

The problem with you're "live and let live" mantra is that its never been true, and till very recently,  society only "accepted" gay people when the gays were in the closet, not allowed to marry, not given rights. 

That was what people considered "live and let live" Christians/straight people have full right and gay people don't...but are allowed to live and not immediately put to death. 

Not that lgbtq people are asking and demanding equal rights under the law...you see that as a threat and as them "imposing" themselves on you when in reality its them trying to undo historical and institutional wrongs. 

How long has the LBGTQ+ldfnb Coalition been in existence?  Not until recently?  That Coalition has become more of a bully since 2015 when the right to same sex marriage was allowed by the Supreme Court.  It is almost as if they were not satisfied with equality, they wanted to get even for all the perceived wrongs perpetrated in centuries past.

Gays do not pose a threat to me, quite the contrary, they get to live the way they want.  I don’t believe they have a right to force their ideology on anyone, just as I don’t have a right to force mine on theirs.

When it comes to minors, its a totally different story.  There is a thread for that in the smack talk forum.

Edited December 3, 2022 by I_M4_AU

[Leftfield 2,595]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Who said that?  

You did. You said the situation was apples and oranges. You're ok with the baker being able to discriminate, but not the doctor.

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

He refused to bake a cake because of his beliefs, not that his customer was a homosexual.  Its a nuance, l know, but the courts seemed to agree that he was not discriminating or at least he was within his rights.

His beliefs, to him, say that homosexuality is wrong, which is why he refused. You're citing a distinction without a difference, not a nuance.

[I_M4_AU 7,810]

2 hours ago, Leftfield said:

You did. You said the situation was apples and oranges. You're ok with the baker being able to discriminate, but not the doctor.

His beliefs, to him, say that homosexuality is wrong, which is why he refused. You're citing a distinction without a difference, not a nuance.

Interesting.  Why was the baker allowed to get away with discriminating last year?  Will he be able to after this law is enacted?  The matter should not have changed after this law passes, but I bet it does.

 

[Leftfield 2,595]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Interesting.  Why was the baker allowed to get away with discriminating last year?  Will he be able to after this law is enacted?  The matter should not have changed after this law passes, but I bet it does.

 

As you well know, because you have mentioned it, the case was reversed by the Supreme Court due to the majority's judgement that the Colorado Civil Rights commission did not show neutrality toward the bakery owner's religious beliefs. The case was not reversed due to the Supreme Court disagreeing with the Colorado courts' rulings.

 

[I_M4_AU 7,810]

8 hours ago, Leftfield said:

As you well know, because you have mentioned it, the case was reversed by the Supreme Court due to the majority's judgement that the Colorado Civil Rights commission did not show neutrality toward the bakery owner's religious beliefs. The case was not reversed due to the Supreme Court disagreeing with the Colorado courts' rulings.

 

With this new law; do you think there will be a need for neutrality of religious beliefs going forward?

[Leftfield 2,595]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

With this new law; do you think there will be a need for neutrality of religious beliefs going forward?

Not sure I completely understand your question, but I believe there should always be neutrality of religious beliefs. I'm not naive enough to believe that is always the case, as apparently evidenced by the actions of the Colorado Civil Rights commission (I don't know the details). If the law is passed the point will likely be moot, since it would be a clear civil rights violation. That may be what you are pointing out?

 

[aubiefifty 16,777]

21 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

If a person is deep in faith he lives his faith in every facet of his/her life.  It is not restricted to when you are in church.  I admire their conviction, if you force them to give up that conviction because you don’t believe as deeply as they do, you are forcing them to comply with your beliefs.

First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I believe the free exercise is not restricted to when you are in church.

I have said before that when this law is passed the Denver baker will be one of the first places an activist will try to prove the law.

If there are other bakers close by; how has the homosexual/gender fluid person harmed?

your religion cannot infringe on others nor take away their basic human rights.

[I_M4_AU 7,810]

16 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

your religion cannot infringe on others nor take away their basic human rights.

Rights are being infringed upon on a daily basis, as long as it isn’t religious in nature.  A store that puts up a *gun free zone* is infringing on your 2nd amendment right to bare arms.  No one opposes this rule, or very few.  A store that puts up a *no shirt, no shoes, no service* sign is within their rights to do so, but is, in its self, discriminatory.

Why do you think a religious belief is ok to trample on and these other rights are ok to trample on?

[CoffeeTiger 5,107]

28 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Rights are being infringed upon on a daily basis, as long as it isn’t religious in nature.  A store that puts up a *gun free zone* is infringing on your 2nd amendment right to bare arms.  No one opposes this rule, or very few.  A store that puts up a *no shirt, no shoes, no service* sign is within their rights to do so, but is, in its self, discriminatory.

 

None of that violates rights or is classified as discrimination. 

2nd amendment means the government cant stop you from owning weapons, it does not require everyone else to allow you to carry those weapons on their private property. 

no shirt no shoes no service is not discrimination against any class protected by law. No law or right in America declares that are person cannot be discriminated against for not wearing clothes. Certain types of "discrimination" are legal and allowed. no clothing, being drunk or high, causing disturbances by being loud or yelling, all these things people are allowed to 'discriminate' against you for. 

 

We're arguing here for religious people to be able to deny services to lgbtq people, which would violate federal law. 

You're saying it shouldn't be against the law to discriminate against lgbtq people, but it is the law, and a majority of America supports lgbtq protections. 

28 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Why do you think a religious belief is ok to trample on and these other rights are ok to trample on?

Because religious beliefs are not being trampled on. What is being "trampled on" are religious poeple's ability to go out in public and discriminate illegally against people in commerce or in the course of their jobs.  

No modern, functional society can allow that or ethically operate like that. We aren't a theocracy. The rules of the Bible, nor of any other religious text, can dictate the rules of society at large. 

[Leftfield 2,595]

2 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

2nd amendment means the government cant stop you from owning weapons, it does not require everyone else to allow you to carry those weapons on their private property. 

The obvious evidence of this is that I've never seen anyone try to sue their employer for not being allowed to bring a gun to work. That would have long since been done if there were any merit to it.

I would also add that even in frontier times it was common, and maybe even usual, to be required to turn your gun in when you entered a town.

[aubiefifty 16,777]

49 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Rights are being infringed upon on a daily basis, as long as it isn’t religious in nature.  A store that puts up a *gun free zone* is infringing on your 2nd amendment right to bare arms.  No one opposes this rule, or very few.  A store that puts up a *no shirt, no shoes, no service* sign is within their rights to do so, but is, in its self, discriminatory.

Why do you think a religious belief is ok to trample on and these other rights are ok to trample on?

you guys do not want them to marry. hell most of you will admit you would see them changed even if that includes sending them to camp to brainwash them.because basic human rights like marriage especially is none of your business. period. thats why. what is really bad is people see the hate and then throw something out there like love the sinner but hate the sin. that is an excuse because you guys for the most part do not love gays anyway. you think they are freaks and tainted. hell your party other than twelve votes basically are proof what i say is true. love is the higher law and you guys are not throwing any love at it at all.

[I_M4_AU 7,810]

5 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

We're arguing here for religious people to be able to deny services to lgbtq people, which would violate federal law. 

You're saying it shouldn't be against the law to discriminate against lgbtq people, but it is the law, and a majority of America supports lgbtq protections. 

What we are arguing here is that a business owner can post rules that are to his/her liking and not many will object.  Let me be clear; I don’t agree with discriminating against gay people, I’m just trying to understand the difference if a business can or can not choose who they serve.  If that business refuses service to a particular clientele, wouldn’t that business be ostracized from that clientele without the benefit of the law? 

I can see a law for government companies, contractors and the such, but religious freedom is a thing that is guaranteed under the Constitution.  Given that most religions have agreed to the new law, to single out religion as the detractor is incorrect:

The big picture: Majorities of most major religious groups back same-sex marriage, according to a March poll by the Public Religion Research Institute. That includes 83% of Jewish Americans, over 70% of Catholics and Protestants, and more than 50% of Muslims. 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has also notably expressed support for the bill.

https://www.axios.com/2022/11/28/same-sex-marriage-religious-groups

Why would it be necessary to restrict, by law, a business’ right to serve who they want in this instance and let the free market decide if they made the right choice?

[I_M4_AU 7,810]

8 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

you guys do not want them to marry. hell most of you will admit you would see them changed even if that includes sending them to camp to brainwash them.because basic human rights like marriage especially is none of your business. period. thats why. what is really bad is people see the hate and then throw something out there like love the sinner but hate the sin. that is an excuse because you guys for the most part do not love gays anyway. you think they are freaks and tainted. hell your party other than twelve votes basically are proof what i say is true. love is the higher law and you guys are not throwing any love at it at all.

They you go again postulating for someone else with little evidence.  Accusing *you guys* of hateful things based on the voices in your head.  A person can disagree with a lifestyle without hating that person.  And yes a person can hate the sin, but like the person.  Do you love every person fifty?  It appears by your above post you don’t.

The Republicans that voted against the law were concerned the law did not protect religious freedom like Mike Lee of Utah.  He had an amendment to strengthen the language that was voted down as two other republicans did and both of those were voted down.  Somehow, the rest of the Senate were not concerned with religious freedom.  We shall see going forward.

[Leftfield 2,595]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Why would it be necessary to restrict, by law, a business’ right to serve who they want in this instance and let the free market decide if they made the right choice?

Because allowing them to restrict who they serve can cause harm. The obvious examples of that would be if a grocery store, gas station, or the aforementioned doctor refused service, and there were no alternatives (either because of rural location or everyone in that location also chooses not to serve them). You may point out again that a bakery isn't exactly a case of life-or-death, but even in that situation a small degree of harm is done. And as I said, if you allow one person to discriminate, would the Equal Protection Clause not demand that you must allow all?

[AU9377 4,929]

On 12/1/2022 at 2:35 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?

Nobody has taken anything.  The Supreme Court simply ruled that the right to marry was a fundamental right.  They didn't tell heterosexual Christians that they have to change. 

[I_M4_AU 7,810]

14 hours ago, AU9377 said:

Nobody has taken anything

This has yet to be seen.  Three Republican Senators put forward amendments that solidified the language to religious freedom and all three were voted down.  This means some Senators felt the language in the original bill was not sufficient to protect religious freedom.  As I have said previously, the Denver bakery will be targeted as a way to prove there is a difference than what the law was previously.

Why would there be a difference if nothing has been taken away?

14 hours ago, AU9377 said:

The Supreme Court simply ruled that the right to marry was a fundamental right.  They didn't tell heterosexual Christians that they have to change. 

This is yet to be seen also.  As I stated before, there are a lot of Christian organizations that do not have a problem with the new law, but that doesnt mean there are no concern that this law will not change the fundamental way a religion will teach going forward.  If a particular church does not offer same sex wedding ceremonies; will they be punished by the government?

These are the type of concerns the Republicans have that have not been addressed. 

[I_M4_AU 7,810]

18 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Because allowing them to restrict who they serve can cause harm. The obvious examples of that would be if a grocery store, gas station, or the aforementioned doctor refused service, and there were no alternatives (either because of rural location or everyone in that location also chooses not to serve them). You may point out again that a bakery isn't exactly a case of life-or-death, but even in that situation a small degree of harm is done. And as I said, if you allow one person to discriminate, would the Equal Protection Clause not demand that you must allow all?

The examples of the grocery store, gas station or even the doctor do not hold a lot of concern as most of these entities are corporately owned and those corporations have policies that already exist about discrimination.  If you are talking about mom and pop stores, such as the Denver baker, that cause has been taken up and, I am sure, will be taken up again.  I am sure this law will embolden people to speak up whether the harm is egregious or not.

There was a conversation on another thread (and I don’t know where) about a town in Alabama (in the Sand Mountain region) that were discriminating against people and all the locals knew it and so did the ones being discriminated against even with the Equal Protection Clause.  Would it be prudent for someone to go into that town and create a law suit involving these businesses?  Can the law pin down every instance of discrimination and should it?

The law is for everyone, but everyone doesn’t always follow the law.  

To be clear; I am not against the Marriage Act, but I am concerned about how this law, as written, will effect religious freedom with regard to governmental oversight.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

11 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

will they be punished by the government?

No, but they will be forced to accept a government appointed, transsexual pastor. 

[I_M4_AU 7,810]

18 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

No, but they will be forced to accept a government appointed, transsexual pastor. 

Ah yes, freedom to practice your religion, or is this one of your poor attempts at sarcasm?

[icanthearyou 4,462]

7 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Ah yes, freedom to practice your religion, or is this one of your poor attempts at sarcasm?

You WILL become a transsexual.  Accept your fate.

[arein0 950]

I dont understand why this is an issue.

Would it be okay if instead of being gay he was black?

We are in the 2020s. I thought we would be past discriminating against humans for things they cant change like race, sexuality, etc. 

As for the no shoes no shirt no service, those are things that are a choice. People dont choose to be gay, just like people dont choose their skin color.

As for the religious argument, Jesus sought out the discriminated people to provide compassion. The people using Christianity as a reason for discrimination are completely missing lessons Jesus was preaching. Jesus was preaching love, respect, forgiveness. Not condemnation, hate, or discrimination.