Respect for Marriage Act passes with Bi-partisan support.

[Didba 5,256]

On 12/3/2022 at 3:07 PM, homersapien said:

You're the one who implied they were "forcing their ideology" while discussing basic civil rights.

Own it.

@I_M4_AU Frankly, he is correct about Christians forcing their ideologies on others.  LGBTQ are just fighting to be equal citizens like the rest of us. I know at least 60% of the LGBTQ community doesn't care if you are homophobic they just want protection against discrimination like everyone else. 

Not trying to rile you up but there are some, not all mind you, but some Christians who have taken the whole evangelical movement waaaay too far.

[Didba 5,256]

8 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

When did the people lose the right to run their business as they want?

1964. 

When Congress and State Legislatures passed a plethora of laws criminalizing private business discriminating based upon immutable characteristics.

Edited December 8, 2022 by Didba

[Didba 5,256]

17 hours ago, Mims44 said:

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?

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/493/reynolds-v-united-states

This answer all of your questions about bigamy

[Didba 5,256]

7 hours 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.

They can present as many rules based on their faith as they want as long as the rules don't discriminate based upon immutable characteristics.

[Didba 5,256]

7 hours 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?

Is being shirtless an immutable characteristic that one cannot easily change about themselves?

[icanthearyou 4,462]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Do you believe because some religious leaders have gotten things wrong with their interpretations, that all religious interpretations are not to be believed?

Maybe this is why you should follow Jesus?  Perhaps their are "christian" leaders who have their own agendas?

The message of Jesus is simple and clear. 

[Didba 5,256]

4 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

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.

They actually are not the same. Trust me. Here are the material differences: he stated the people had a new religion about killing certain type of people based on their religion, you talked about trans people chastising bigots not based upon any religion. 

His hypo: religion and killing based on it. Your example: no religion and no killing based upon it.

I hope this helps!

[I_M4_AU 7,830]

38 minutes ago, arein0 said:

Religion's relevance / irrelevance is up to each individual person. Everyone has their own story and beliefs. Still doesnt give them the right to infringe on basic civil rights.

Bingo.  If I run a business why is it right for a group to infringe on my beliefs?  Because the government says so?  They feel it is an unjust provision and are fighting it.  What’s your problem with that exactly? 

[Didba 5,256]

2 hours ago, PUB78 said:

Yes, find another baker, florist or wedding planner.

Geez, imagine having this much hate in your heart and claiming to be a Christian. 

I guess you are all for discriminating on race if one's religious beliefs require it? because that is what your statement means.

[arein0 956]

3 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Bingo.  If I run a business why is it right for a group to infringe on my beliefs?  Because the government says so?  They feel it is an unjust provision and are fighting it.  What’s your problem with that exactly? 

Like I have been saying this whole time. Whatever your religious beliefs, doesnt mean you can infringe on others basic civil rights. 

You want to run a business and be religious?  Great you still cant discriminate against customers.

[I_M4_AU 7,830]

33 minutes ago, Didba said:

@I_M4_AU Frankly, he is correct about Christians forcing their ideologies on others.  LGBTQ are just fighting to be equal citizens like the rest of us. I know at least 60% of the LGBTQ community doesn't care if you are homophobic they just want protection against discrimination like everyone else. 

Not trying to rile you up but there are some, not all mind you, but some Christians who have taken the whole evangelical movement waaaay too far.

In years bast I would agree, but the LGBTQ coalition is a different animal and is now pushing their agenda.  You say 60% of them doesn’t care and I can believe that.  But the coalition is like a strong union, it doesn’t care what the majority want it just wants power.

The Christians are pushing back just in a poor way.

[I_M4_AU 7,830]

22 minutes ago, Didba said:

They can present as many rules based on their faith as they want as long as the rules don't discriminate based upon immutable characteristics.

Is marriage an immutable characteristic?

[I_M4_AU 7,830]

22 minutes ago, Didba said:

Is being shirtless an immutable characteristic that one cannot easily change about themselves?

It is if you don’t own a shirt.  If you are going argue every possibility I can too.

[I_M4_AU 7,830]

22 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Maybe this is why you should follow Jesus?  Perhaps their are "christian" leaders who have their own agendas?

The message of Jesus is simple and clear. 

I do follow Jesus, but I am still not perfect.

[I_M4_AU 7,830]

24 minutes ago, Didba said:

They actually are not the same. Trust me. Here are the material differences: he stated the people had a new religion about killing certain type of people based on their religion, you talked about trans people chastising bigots not based upon any religion. 

His hypo: religion and killing based on it. Your example: no religion and no killing based upon it.

I hope this helps!

Would it help if the ideology was actually a religion, just by a different name?

Both are forcing a belief that is not held to be true be a majority.  They have to force the masses to be socially constructed to believe they are correct.

[I_M4_AU 7,830]

22 minutes ago, arein0 said:

Like I have been saying this whole time. Whatever your religious beliefs, doesnt mean you can infringe on others basic civil rights. 

You want to run a business and be religious?  Great you still cant discriminate against customers.

We must disagree.  Good talk

[PUB78 1,358]

23 minutes ago, Didba said:

Geez, imagine having this much hate in your heart and claiming to be a Christian. 

I guess you are all for discriminating on race if one's religious beliefs require it? because that is what your statement means.

No, not at all. If a baker, florist, artist, wedding planner does not want to accommodate you for a homosexual theme event or item, then they should find one who will. Why try and make them go against their religion beliefs ?

It’s pretty simple.

[Leftfield 2,598]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Of course they can.  Do you automatically go there?

You, uh.....do understand that you stated the opposite first, right?

[Leftfield 2,598]

1 hour ago, Didba said:

I, honestly, will be shocked if the Supreme Court sides with the web designer because the law just doesn't support it. It will have to be very creative or just bad.

Wish I had your optimism on this. Not long ago I would have agreed. Now, I just don't know.

[I_M4_AU 7,830]

8 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

You, uh.....do understand that you stated the opposite first, right?

Yes, I was just trying to close the loop.

[Leftfield 2,598]

37 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Is marriage an immutable characteristic?

Already discussed this. It's not immutable for gay or straight couples. You still don't subscribe to the equal protection aspect of the law?

You also danced around the comparison of this to what interracial couples had to endure. When I asked the difference, all you said was "If you can’t figure it out, I can’t help you." Well, I still can't figure it out. Please explain it to me.

43 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

It is if you don’t own a shirt.  If you are going argue every possibility I can too.

You are really circling the drain on this.

[homersapien 11,373]

3 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

You live a wonderfully virtuous life.  Do you take a stand on anything?  Are you so wishy washy that you will even allow your kids to dictate your thoughts?  Sound like he** to me.

The other stance is you are allowed to have your thoughts and convictions and those thoughts and convictions will sometimes not align with societal norms.  And that’s alright.  Religion has been squeezed into a box to the point it is irrelevant.even though it is a right in the constitution. There have been laws enacted that are contrary to freedom of religion.

A white man sitting on a bench next to Quanah Parker, the last great Comanche chief, askked him how the white man was able to take all Comanche land, Quanah moved closer to the man and the man moved away.  He did this until the man fell of the bench and then said *that’s how*

The irony here is that it's your position that is gradually making Christianity less and less relevant in this country.

Keep it up.

Edited December 9, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,373]

34 minutes ago, PUB78 said:

No, not at all. If a baker, florist, artist, wedding planner does not want to accommodate you for a homosexual theme event or item, then they should find one who will. Why try and make them go against their religion beliefs ?

It’s pretty simple.

Yeah, just like blacks had to do when they wanted to check into a motel with their family late at night.  Just drive on down the road and keep looking.

[Leftfield 2,598]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

A white man sitting on a bench next to Quanah Parker, the last great Comanche chief, asked him how the white man was able to take all Comanche land, Quanah moved closer to the man and the man moved away.  He did this until the man fell of the bench and then said *that’s how*

Would just like to point out how monumentally tone deaf it is to use a story about the oppression of native Americans as a corollary for the oppression of American Christianity.

[I_M4_AU 7,830]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

The irony here is that it is your position that is gradually making Christianity more and more irrelevant in this country.

Keep it up.

You left out a few words.  My position is government makes laws the gradually make Christianity more irrelevant.