Respect for Marriage Act passes with Bi-partisan support.

[I_M4_AU 7,827]

12 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

I'm fine with the discrimination as long as,,, these people refuse service to all "sinners".

 

I would guess they believe a marriage is between a man and a woman.  That would be their basis for refusing service.  You, do course, would not agree.

[I_M4_AU 7,827]

13 hours ago, Leftfield said:

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. 

That runs up against the 1st amendment that the government will not make laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion, doesn’t it?

Again, I don’t necessarily hold with the baker or web designer, but it is an interesting question about religious and free speech rights and which will prevail.

[I_M4_AU 7,827]

11 hours ago, arein0 said:

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.

Specifically, Genesis 2.24 states a marriage is between a man and a woman.  I can see your point, it’s just you can’t understand their point and that’s alright.  It’s in the hands of the SCOTUS and Congress.

[I_M4_AU 7,827]

12 hours ago, homersapien said:

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

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

Praise Jesus! 

When did the people lose the right to run their business as they want?  A business can refuse service if you walk in without a shirt or shoes.  The business has that right and nobody is arguing that .  What’s the logic behind this order?  Has anybody questioned it?

 

[Leftfield 2,598]

34 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

That runs up against the 1st amendment that the government will not make laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion, doesn’t it?

Again, I don’t necessarily hold with the baker or web designer, but it is an interesting question about religious and free speech rights and which will prevail.

But laws, even the 1st Amendment, are not absolute. The rights of one end when their actions negatively impact another, at least above a certain threshold. Admittedly, that threshold is subjective, which of course is what the courts are for. In this case I see actions violating civil rights, motivated by offense to that person's sensibilities as defined by their interpretation of their religion.

 

[Leftfield 2,598]

33 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

When did the people lose the right to run their business as they want?  A business can refuse service if you walk in without a shirt or shoes. 

 

But the no shirt/no shoes is applied evenly to everyone, regardless of race/creed/sexual orientation/etc.

[arein0 956]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Specifically, Genesis 2.24 states a marriage is between a man and a woman.  I can see your point, it’s just you can’t understand their point and that’s alright.  It’s in the hands of the SCOTUS and Congress.

I can see your point, but assuming they are Christian, there are several Bible verses that contradict their beliefs of not serving married gays:

Galatians 3:28

Galatians 5:14

James 2:2-4

Matthew 5:44

Romans 2:11

Mark 12:31

Acts 10:34

John 8:15

Do I need to keep going? All throughout the bible are verses about treating everyone the same. As a Christian, I have never been able to understand how people can use the Bible as an excuse for discrimination when there are tons of scripture talking about treating everyone as equals.

[Leftfield 2,598]

10 hours ago, Mims44 said:

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?

This is a good question. Not sure all the reasons polygamy is illegal, but I do know you get into issues of taxes, insurance, and other financial aspects that can give extra benefits that couples don't have. 

Personally, I don't care a whit if people choose to have a polygamous relationship, but I do agree there shouldn't be any additional financial benefits to it.

[I_M4_AU 7,827]

15 minutes ago, arein0 said:

I can see your point, but assuming they are Christian, there are several Bible verses that contradict their beliefs of not serving married gays:

Galatians 3:28

Galatians 5:14

James 2:2-4

Matthew 5:44

Romans 2:11

Mark 12:31

Acts 10:34

John 8:15

Do I need to keep going? All throughout the bible are verses about treating everyone the same. As a Christian, I have never been able to understand how people can use the Bible as an excuse for discrimination when there are tons of scripture talking about treating everyone as equals.

I have no idea what religion they practice.  The verses you posted are all from the New Testament; would you think differently if they were of the Orthodox Jewish faith?

[I_M4_AU 7,827]

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

But the no shirt/no shoes is applied evenly to everyone, regardless of race/creed/sexual orientation/etc.

They are running their business the way they want is the point.  I’m sure it offends the shirtless one, but his feelings don’t count?

[I_M4_AU 7,827]

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

Admittedly, that threshold is subjective, which of course is what the courts are for. In this case I see actions violating civil rights, motivated by offense to that person's sensibilities as defined by their interpretation of their religion.

I can see the business owners right to present rules based on their faith.  In today’s world, it is unpopular to believe in your convictions if it is not what the mob decides is correct.

[Leftfield 2,598]

8 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

They are running their business the way they want is the point.  I’m sure it offends the shirtless one, but his feelings don’t count?

[Leftfield 2,598]

6 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I can see the business owners right to present rules based on their faith.  In today’s world, it is unpopular to believe in your convictions if it is not what the mob decides is correct.

You continue to miss the point. If you are going to operate a public business, you have to apply standards equally to all, regardless of the always-stated factors (race/religion/sexual orientation/gender). If the baker wants to make a cake for a straight couple privately, but refuses to do so for a gay couple, they are perfectly within their rights, but you can't do it with a business.

If a customer is exhibiting a behavior that makes the business owner refuse to serve them, that's perfectly legal as long as the baker would do the same for any other customer.

It's unfortunate you think a state law legalizing same-sex marriage is "mob rule," but that's the way it works.

[arein0 956]

5 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I have no idea what religion they practice.  The verses you posted are all from the New Testament; would you think differently if they were of the Orthodox Jewish faith?

Again, you keep looking for reasons to allow discrimination, but since you asked:

Proverbs 6:16-19

Genesis 1:27

Leviticus 19:14

Proverbs 28:21

Proverbs 24:23

Deuteronomy 10:17-19

1 Samuel 16:7

I have a hard time believing any religion promotes discrimination. So for someone to justify discrimination because of religious beliefs is baffling. 

[I_M4_AU 7,827]

2 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

You continue to miss the point. If you are going to operate a public business, you have to apply standards equally to all, regardless of the always-stated factors (race/religion/sexual orientation/gender).

Then why is the web disinter fighting her case to the SCOTUS?  Evidently it is not settled law.  As you said easily it is subjective.

5 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

It's unfortunate you think a state law legalizing same-sex marriage is "mob rule," but that's the way it works.

I never said that, I am worried that this bill will stifle religious freedom.

[I_M4_AU 7,827]

12 minutes ago, arein0 said:

Again, you keep looking for reasons to allow discrimination, but since you asked:

Proverbs 6:16-19

Genesis 1:27

Leviticus 19:14

Proverbs 28:21

Proverbs 24:23

Deuteronomy 10:17-19

1 Samuel 16:7

I have a hard time believing any religion promotes discrimination. So for someone to justify discrimination because of religious beliefs is baffling. 

Again, I’m now sure how these people rationalize their views, but so far it is in the hands of the SCOTUS.  Let’s see how it ends.

The Genesis 1.27 verse as an interesting one.  It just leaves the next verse out that commands man and woman to go forth and multiple.  Hard to do with male/male and girl/girl marriages.

[arein0 956]

2 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Again, I’m now sure how these people rationalize their views, but so far it is in the hands of the SCOTUS.  Let’s see how it ends.

The Genesis 1.27 verse as an interesting one.  It just leaves the next verse out that commands man and woman to go forth and multiple.  Hard to do with male/male and girl/girl marriages.

So just to be clear. You think it is okay to discriminate against others as long as it "follows their religious beliefs"

So hypothetically if later on down the road some creates the religion of hate and it gets a big following. Say their scripture says that only black hair and green eyed people should be allowed to live. Would it be okay for one of the followers to refuse service or kill anyone that isnt black haired and green eyed?

[I_M4_AU 7,827]

30 minutes ago, arein0 said:

So just to be clear. You think it is okay to discriminate against others as long as it "follows their religious beliefs"

So hypothetically if later on down the road some creates the religion of hate and it gets a big following. Say their scripture says that only black hair and green eyed people should be allowed to live. Would it be okay for one of the followers to refuse service or kill anyone that isnt black haired and green eyed?

The first sentence will be settled by the SCOTUS, I have no dog in the fight.

Your hypothetical is interesting. This is actually happening today.  If you are against a child that says he/she is really a she/he you are chastised and not taken seriously in any discussion of transing children and that is not a religious belief, it is pure ideology.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

1 hour ago, arein0 said:

Again, you keep looking for reasons to allow discrimination, but since you asked:

Proverbs 6:16-19

Genesis 1:27

Leviticus 19:14

Proverbs 28:21

Proverbs 24:23

Deuteronomy 10:17-19

1 Samuel 16:7

I have a hard time believing any religion promotes discrimination. So for someone to justify discrimination because of religious beliefs is baffling. 

It would be a much better world if "christians" would spend less time practicing the customs, traditions of Christianity and, spend more time actually following Jesus.

Mark Chapter 7

[Didba 5,256]

18 hours 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

I generally don't like the idea that a person's service they are providing is a form of "speech" and their providing services to someone is "endorsing" the other person's beliefs.

It's also important to point out that SCOTUS has upheld restrictions on religious practices before.  For instance, Peyote cases, and Mormons/bigamy. Certain religious ritual restrictions have also been upheld.

[Didba 5,256]

40 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The first sentence will be settled by the SCOTUS, I have no dog in the fight.

Your hypothetical is interesting. This is actually happening today.  If you are against a child that says he/she is really a she/he you are chastised and not taken seriously in any discussion of transing children and that is not a religious belief, it is pure ideology.

Your trans statement and his hypothetical are not the same. Just fyi. doesn't really change anything.

[Didba 5,256]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

I never said that, I am worried that this bill will stifle religious freedom.

It won't.

[I_M4_AU 7,827]

9 minutes ago, Didba said:

Your trans statement and his hypothetical are not the same. Just fyi. doesn't really change anything.

Sure the hypothetical is the same, arein0 made up some off the way idea and think people would agree with this.  Gender identity is off the wall and people are believing it to the point they are trying to make laws that restrict people from objecting.

I didn’t say it changed anything, just pointing out an opinion.

[Leftfield 2,598]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Then why is the web disinter fighting her case to the SCOTUS?  Evidently it is not settled law.  As you said easily it is subjective.

People challenge laws all the time. How is this different?

By the way, I fully expect the current makeup of the Supreme Court to side with her.

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

I never said that....

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

In today’s world, it is unpopular to believe in your convictions if it is not what the mob decides is correct.

 

[I_M4_AU 7,827]

12 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

People challenge laws all the time. How is this different?

By the way, I fully expect the current makeup of the Supreme Court to side with her.

 

So, if they do side with her, how would you react?

To the two quotes you attribute to me as not believing in same sex marriage is off.  The first one that stated: I never said that is referring to your inference the I believed it was due to mob rule.  I never said that and, as stated in the part you left of that I was concerned about losing religious freedom.

The second one was a general statement concerning the way the world acts now.  It was not specifically about same sex marriage.