Jump to content

Respect for Marriage Act passes with Bi-partisan support.


AU9377

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites





Liberty is a beautiful thing. We should embrace it more. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Credit to the 12 Republicans who undoutbably will recieve pushback from some of their base for supporting this, but knew it was the right thing to do anyway. 

Roy Blunt Mo.
Richard Burr N.C.
Shelley Moore Capito W.Va.
Susan Collins Maine
Joni Ernst Iowa
Cynthia Lummis Wyo.
Lisa Murkowski Alaska
Rob Portman Ohio
Mitt Romney Utah
Dan Sullivan Alaska
Thom Tillis N.C.
Todd C. Young Ind.<
 
 

And obviously credit to ALL Democrats that voted for it and helped create it. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2022/11/30/senate-republicans-just-spat-in-your-face-n666573

https://thefederalist.com/2022/11/28/their-constituents-oppose-the-gay-marriage-bill-so-whom-do-these-12-gop-senators-think-theyre-representing/

 

The Conservative Right is BIG MAD that Republicans allowed this bill to pass and guarantee rights to people who might not be straight, Republican voting, Christians. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Credit to the 12 Republicans who undoutbably will recieve pushback from some of their base for supporting this, but knew it was the right thing to do anyway. 

Roy Blunt Mo.
Richard Burr N.C.
Shelley Moore Capito W.Va.
Susan Collins Maine
Joni Ernst Iowa
Cynthia Lummis Wyo.
Lisa Murkowski Alaska
Rob Portman Ohio
Mitt Romney Utah
Dan Sullivan Alaska
Thom Tillis N.C.
Todd C. Young Ind.<
 
 

And obviously credit to ALL Democrats that voted for it and helped create it. 

  We need those same Senators to come together on a voting rights/election security bill. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CoffeeTiger said:

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2022/11/30/senate-republicans-just-spat-in-your-face-n666573

https://thefederalist.com/2022/11/28/their-constituents-oppose-the-gay-marriage-bill-so-whom-do-these-12-gop-senators-think-theyre-representing/

 

The Conservative Right is BIG MAD that Republicans allowed this bill to pass and guarantee rights to people who might not be straight, Republican voting, Christians. 

 

Trying to legalize perversion.

  • Like 2
  • Dislike 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, PUB78 said:

Trying to legalize perversion.

Hmm....I'm trying to figure out why younger voters are moving away from the Republican party. It'll come to me, just let me scratch my head for a minute....

  • Like 5
  • Love 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, PUB78 said:

Trying to legalize perversion.

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. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 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. 

There were amendments that were purposed that tightened down religious freedoms and all three was voted down.  I would be willing to bet the baker in Denver will be sued in short order when this law is passed. 

The way this is written if appears this law is forcing everyone to believe and live the way the LGBQ+bjaoi coalition would like you to.

  • Dislike 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

There were amendments that were purposed that tightened down religious freedoms and all three was voted down.

 

Good. The bill already contains faith based protections in it and the proposed amendments where nothing more than attempts to make religious people basically exempt from the law, and allow them to discriminate at will.  It also tried to make faith based organizations performing government work or on government contracts from being classified as "government actors" and immune from the law against discrimination. That would have been wrong. 

 

 

 

10 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The way this is written if appears this law is forcing everyone to believe and live the way the LGBQ+bjaoi coalition would like you to.

 

That's not true now and that's never been true. Giving non-Christians equal rights and Forcing religious people not to hate and discriminate against others is not the same as forcing them to live their own lives that way. 

Edited by CoffeeTiger
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, PUB78 said:

Trying to legalize perversion.

This is about two consenting adults having the right to enter into a contractual relationship established by the government that affords them rights and privileges already afforded to others.    This isn't about marrying a dog or other animal as some on the right have suggested, but about two adult human beings.  If people are not free to love who they choose, are they really free at all?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

Good. The bill already contains faith based protections in it and the proposed amendments where nothing more than attempts to make religious people basically exempt from the law, and allow them to discriminate at will.  It also tried to make faith based organizations performing government work or on government contracts from being classified as "government actors" and immune from the law against discrimination. That would have been wrong. 

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.

9 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

That's not true now and that's never been true. Giving non-Christians equal rights and Forcing religious people not to hate and discriminate against others is not the same as forcing them to live their own lives that way. 

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.

  • Like 1
  • Facepalm 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Hmm....I'm trying to figure out why younger voters are moving away from the Republican party. It'll come to me, just let me scratch my head for a minute....

 

5DCF78FC-27E3-4801-8B86-D7347F411E41.jpeg

  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AU9377 said:

If people are not free to love who they choose, are they really free at

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

  • Like 1
  • Facepalm 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, 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?

How is not allowing a person to discriminate against another keeping them from worshipping their religion?

If a business owner is being caused harm by that person, either directly or somehow through the performance of their job, it would make sense not to serve them, but there is no injury from them simply being homosexual.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

How is not allowing a person to discriminate against another keeping them from worshipping their religion?

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.

10 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

If a business owner is being caused harm by that person, either directly or somehow through the performance of their job, it would make sense not to serve them, but there is no injury from them simply being homosexual.

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?

  • Dislike 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes 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 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?

16 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

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.

Yes, but that harm would come from violating the civil rights of others.

17 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

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

Was this the best baker in that area? That may sound absurd, but think about it in terms of a doctor: Can a doctor refuse a patient because they don't like who they are? What if they're the best doctor around? Should the law allow a person to force substandard service on another simply because of who they are? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus never spoke against homosexuals.

Homosexuality is not a sin.

The desire to persecute homosexuals is definitely is a sin.  It is in direct conflict with what Jesus commanded us to do.

 

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

1 hour ago, 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 is getting their constitutional right taken away. And no, people are not "free" to worship their religion in ways that harm others or violate the rights of other people.

It is not legal to have human/pet sacrifices even if it was someone's sincere religious belief that their God required live sacrifices. 

It's not legal to refuse to pay taxes or obey government laws even if someone believes in a religion that says they are not supposed to submit to any kind of government authority. 

There are innumerable examples that can be given of possible religious beliefs that would not and have never been legal in the United states and that has never had constitutional protections. 

20 minutes 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.

 

In that case it would be on the religious person to not put themselves in positions where they would be required to violate their beliefs or commit that what consider sins. The rest of the society can't be held responsible for making sure each individual person with any silly religious belief they may have is not required to ever be uncomfortable or make sacrifices in service to their beliefs. 

If you believe its sinful to serve or interact with gay/trans people then don't own a business or get a job where you would be required to. You can't force other people to have less rights because YOU consider their very personhood or existence to be sinful. 

If you believe it is sinful to offer contraception's or perform common medical procedures or give out common medical perscriptions like abortion aids then you shouldn't get a job as a pharmacist or a doctor. 

It's past time for Religious people to start making sacrifices THEMSELVES (like it commands in the bible), rather than forcing everyone else to sacrifice in service to them. 

3 hours ago, 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.

The Baker has religious freedom. He can believe and practice whatever he wants.....but he can't legally own a business and discriminate if he wants to live in America. If he wants to live in a place where he can legally discriminate against people he doesn't like then places like Russia, Saudi Arabia, or Iran would be better places for him......but in those cases he'd probably find its legal in those countries for people to discriminate against HIM also...which I have a feeling he wouldn't like so much. 

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

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.

I did use unclear wording. You are right that there is no law where you can't hate other people or discriminate against them on a personal level, but no, you cannot legally discriminate if you are offering a public service or good or providing government services. You can hate gays all you want, but you can't refuse to serve them food or sign their marriage certificates if it's your job to do so. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PUB78 said:

 

5DCF78FC-27E3-4801-8B86-D7347F411E41.jpeg

 

This would be completely meaningless to anyone who doesn't follow the Bible. 

 

And even so, if God did nothing to stop or prevent some of the most horrific events in human history (wars, plagues, genocides) that led to unimaginable suffering, pain and death, I seriously doubt he cares very much about gay people waving around a rainbow flag. 

 

My advise to you would be to focus more on God's love and acceptance and less on your excitement of his possible  anger, and vengeance on people you don't like or who you believe are sinful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, 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?

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.

28 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Was this the best baker in that area? That may sound absurd, but think about it in terms of a doctor: Can a doctor refuse a patient because they don't like who they are? What if they're the best doctor around? Should the law allow a person to force substandard service on another simply because of who they are? 

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.  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.

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?

It will be interesting to see how this law is implemented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

The Baker has religious freedom. He can believe and practice whatever he wants.....but he can't legally own a business and discriminate if he wants to live in America. If he wants to live in a place where he can legally discriminate against people he doesn't like then places like Russia, Saudi Arabia, or Iran would be better places for him......but in those cases he'd probably find its legal in those countries for people to discriminate against HIM also...which I have a feeling he wouldn't like so much. 

This baker refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple and the Supreme Court (albeit cowardly) upheld his right.  This bill might change things and that is where it will get interesting.

 

40 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

I did use unclear wording. You are right that there is no law where you can't hate other people or discriminate against them on a personal level, but no, you cannot legally discriminate if you are offering a public service or good or providing government services. You can hate gays all you want, but you can't refuse to serve them food or sign their marriage certificates if it's your job to do so. 

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.

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.

The rest of your post is going down a rabbit hole and I’m not willing to go there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Leftfield said:

I'd actually prefer it if you'd take shelter.

I already have shelter. How about you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

This would be completely meaningless to anyone who doesn't follow the Bible. 

 

And even so, if God did nothing to stop or prevent some of the most horrific events in human history (wars, plagues, genocides) that led to unimaginable suffering, pain and death, I seriously doubt he cares very much about gay people waving around a rainbow flag. 

 

My advise to you would be to focus more on God's love and acceptance and less on your excitement of his possible  anger, and vengeance on people you don't like or who you believe are sinful.

Don’t say you and the homosexuals haven’t been warned. God is a God of love, but you have to accept him and become born again, or a new person.

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
  • Members Online

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...