Respect for Marriage Act passes with Bi-partisan support.

[homersapien 11,373]

14 minutes ago, Didba said:

Well, a baker can't refuse to serve someone based on religion either.

I understand that.  I was just trying to think through the legal requirements and the proposition of being "forced".  (I don't really know the law.)

Anyway, like you, I would fully expect them to bake the cake - it's not like homosexuals aren't used to dealing with homophobic a**holes.   

In fact, dealing with a couple of religious homophobes should be a "piece of cake" for them as well as one they'd get paid for.

 

Edited December 9, 2022 by homersapien

[Leftfield 2,598]

18 minutes ago, Didba said:

Well, a baker can't refuse to serve someone based on religion either.

This would be an interesting thought experiment. My initial reaction was to agree, but then I began to wonder if this might actually be defensible in court. Take away the religious aspect, can a person be forced to write a statement that condemns their very being? If not, does the fact that it's part of a religious text make any difference? After all, the baker would reject it from any customer, regardless of creed. The baker would be rejecting the statement, not the religion.

I agree with you, though....I'd just bake the damn cake and be all smiles about it.

[Leftfield 2,598]

9 minutes ago, homersapien said:

In fact, dealing with a couple of religious homophobes should be a "piece of cake" for them as well as one they'd get paid for.

[Didba 5,256]

5 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

This would be an interesting thought experiment. My initial reaction was to agree, but then I began to wonder if this might actually be defensible in court. Take away the religious aspect, can a person be forced to write a statement that condemns their very being? If not, does the fact that it's part of a religious text make any difference? After all, the baker would reject it from any customer, regardless of creed. The baker would be rejecting the statement, not the religion.

I agree with you, though....I'd just bake the damn cake and be all smiles about it.

It depends if the language is offensive or scripture damning gay people to hell. I think at that point they wouldn't be refusing to serve them because they are christian it would be because the person may have used hate speech. Thing is you can discriminate against people and not serve them for many legitimate reasons that are just pretense when the real reason is the discriminatory one. 

People do it all the time. It is just the Christians who come out and say this stuff so they will get sued and have their name in the news that cause all this hubbub. Pretty vain if you ask me.

Edited December 9, 2022 by Didba

[homersapien 11,373]

4 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

This would be an interesting thought experiment. My initial reaction was to agree, but then I began to wonder if this might actually be defensible in court. Take away the religious aspect, can a person be forced to write a statement that condemns their very being? If not, does the fact that it's part of a religious text make any difference? After all, the baker would reject it from any customer, regardless of creed. The baker would be rejecting the statement, not the religion.

I agree with you, though....I'd just bake the damn cake and be all smiles about it.

That's what was running through my mind.  What about asking a Jewish baker for a cake with a big swastika on it?

[Didba 5,256]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

That's what was running through my mind.  What about asking a Jewish baker for a cake with a big swastika on it?

Well the Baker could refuse as could anyone because being a Nazi isn't protected.

[homersapien 11,373]

10 minutes ago, Didba said:

It depends if the language is offensive or scripture damning gay people to hell. I think at that point they wouldn't be refusing to serve them because they are christian it would be because the person may have used hate speech. Thing is you can discriminate against people and not serve them for many legitimate reasons that are just pretense when the real reason is the discriminatory one. 

People do it all the time. It is just the Christians who come out and say this stuff so they will get sued and have their name in the news that cause all this hubbub. Pretty vain if you ask me.

This is what I loved about getting business strategy advice from lawyers when I was working. 

More often than not, they didn't tell me what I could or couldn't do, just a legal way of doing it. 

Edited December 9, 2022 by homersapien

[AURex 1,998]

As a card-carrying Libertarian in my ancient past, I adhered to the doctrine that any business can deny service to any customer for any reason. The idea being that competition in the marketplace would assure that anyone, no matter what race, religion, sex, etc, would find a business willing to serve them.

As I matured, I realized that the theory was not the reality. I lot of marginalized people were unable to obtain basic services because of their race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, etc. I found this extremely disturbing that the "free market" was not working to assure that all citizens of our country received equitable opportunities. (I began to see it in many other ways, but that is for a different conversation.)

Should a baker be required to provide a wedding cake for a gay couple? I'm now of the opinion that ** It Depends** on whether there are ample options for the couple to obtain a wedding cake ** of comparable quality **  from other bakers. (A Kroger's cake with Happy Marriage is not comparable.)

IMO, there is a balance to be sought in the rights of businesses and the rights of citizens. It's not a "black and white" issue.

 

[PUB78 1,358]

10 hours ago, Didba said:

Because those business owners are breaking multiple laws and normally the couple doesn't know that the business is gonna discriminate until after they try to hire them. At that point, the law is broken and the now pissed off potential customers are full within their rights to enforce the law.

I don't even know why I am trying to explain this to a bigot with his head in the sand.

Now now Sonny. Didn’t your parents teach you respect for your elders?

[PUB78 1,358]

10 hours ago, Didba said:

If some of these Christians weren't bigots towards LGBTQ then the government wouldn't have to make laws.

If you didn’t promote perversion, we wouldn’t need any laws or lawyers.

[PUB78 1,358]

10 hours ago, Didba said:

Yes I would and the homosexual baker should smile, bake the cake, and receive payment so that they abide by the law. I honestly bet if you take 10 gay bakers and 10 christian bakers 8/10 of them wouldn't care and just bake the dang cake, man. No one is going to hell for baking a gay person's wedding cake.

So, you have no principles.  If you pass the Bar, I glad you will be practicing in Texas.

98% of the lawyers give the other 2% a  bad reputation.

[PUB78 1,358]

10 hours ago, homersapien said:

Who is going to force them and on what basis? 

 

 

What’s the difference between this and forcing the Christian baker or florist to do something they believe is immoral?

Hopefully the current case before the USSC, will settled this.

[I_M4_AU 7,827]

12 hours ago, Leftfield said:

I absolutely agree white men pushed Comanches off their land. My point is your complete lack of empathy for them in co-opting their plight to defend the religion that pushed them out to begin with. Doesn't exactly take a rocket surgeon to get that. I guess I shouldn't be surprised when this....

I can see you’re not a history buff.  The Indian War against the Comanche started in and around 1867.  Why is that date significant?  Well, it was 2 years after the Civil War ended and Johnson sent troops to the Southwest to protect the railroad workers from Indian raids.  Does this sound like Christians banding together to run the Indian population off their land?

Later Grant upped the ante against the Comanche that basically ended that war.  Neither of these men had religion as their driving force.  Now there may have been people under their command that tried to rally their troops to fight because of religion, but that is a different story.

As to the grow up part:  people really like to show their virtue by pointing out what you attempted to do.  It is childish, in my opinion, as it doesn’t move any needle with me.  I’m sure people can see how virtuous you are just by your posts.

I don’t have time for this today, so have a good weekend.

[I_M4_AU 7,827]

12 hours ago, homersapien said:

And Christians played a central role in that, too. (See "heathens")

 

Prove that by link.  You know some well know Christian organization that commanded the 7th Calvary to attach Indians.

Are you insane or do you just hate religion that much?

I don’t have anymore time for this today, so have a good weekend.

[homersapien 11,373]

2 hours ago, PUB78 said:

If you didn’t promote perversion, we wouldn’t need any laws or lawyers.

You do such a good job making my case.

Praise Jesus!

Edited December 9, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,373]

1 hour ago, PUB78 said:

What’s the difference between this and forcing the Christian baker or florist to do something they believe is immoral?

Hopefully the current case before the USSC, will settled this.

I suggest a person who feels that way look for a non-retail business to engage in.

(Or if they are Muslim, they can always immigrate to Iran or Afghanistan.)

[homersapien 11,373]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Prove that by link.  You know some well know Christian organization that commanded the 7th Calvary to attach Indians.

Are you insane or do you just hate religion that much?

I don’t have anymore time for this today, so have a good weekend.

Did you see my note re "see heathens"? 

Search some combination of heathens, justification, persecution, war)

Here's one relating to the Pilgrims:

https://brill.com/view/journals/jeah/4/1/article-p37_3.xml

In 1637 a coalition of soldiers from Massachusetts Bay, Connecticut, and allied natives attacked the Pequot fortification at Mystic, Connecticut culminating in the deliberate incineration of hundreds of Pequot men, women, and children. As part of the larger Pequot War (1636–37), the incident at Fort Mystic represents a distinctly “Puritan” moment of heightened aggression grounded in Puritan beliefs of humility and pride. Over the course of the 1630s the Puritans increasingly associated the entire Pequot nation with a myriad of sins, including pride, insolence, and an unwillingness to submit to the Christian God. This behavior was categorically opposed to Puritan expectations of Christian behavior that demanded humility. Puritans believed that when humble, God would intervene on one’s behalf, thus rewarding humility in the face of God’s greatness. The destruction of the Pequot was divine retribution on behalf of the godly against the sin of pride in the Pequot nation.

 

That's just one.  There are innumerable others.

The fact that wars and genocide were conducted throughout human history in the name of Christianity - and other religions - is basic knowledge. 

So no, I am not insane.  I am educated and curious, particularly regarding history. 

 

Edited December 9, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,373]

2 hours ago, PUB78 said:

What’s the difference between this and forcing the Christian baker or florist to do something they believe is immoral?

Hopefully the current case before the USSC, will settled this.

Legally or morally?

One is illegal, both are arguably wrong morally.

SCOTUS will either settle it - or more likely considering the court's make-up - kick the can down the road for it to be settled after people like you die off.

[PUB78 1,358]

11 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I suggest a person who feels that way look for a non-retail business to engage in.

(Or if they are Muslim, they can always immigrate to Iran or Afghanistan.)

Homer! I can’t believe you would say that about Muslims!

[PUB78 1,358]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Legally or morally?

One is illegal, both are arguably wrong morally.

SCOTUS will either settle it - or more likely considering the court's make-up - kick the can down the road for it to be settled after people like you die off.

You are older than me, so you will probably go first!🔥

[homersapien 11,373]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

Well, it was 2 years after the Civil War ended and Johnson sent troops to the Southwest to protect the railroad workers from Indian raids.  Does this sound like Christians banding together to run the Indian population off their land?

 

What a sense of warped entitlement you have.

Did it occur to you that RR was running over land the Indians had lived on for over 30,000 years?

The U.S. Army was only one tool used to commit genocide against native Americans.  But I assure you, a major moral excuse used by all those involved - settlers, army, militias, mobs - was righteous eradication of heathens.

[homersapien 11,373]

9 minutes ago, PUB78 said:

Homer! I can’t believe you would say that about Muslims!

I "say that" about any religious radicals.   Hell, even buddhists - of all religous sects  - have committed atrocities for the cause of religious belief. 

And their religion condemns violence in every form.  (Sound familiar?)

[homersapien 11,373]

2 hours ago, PUB78 said:

Now now Sonny. Didn’t your parents teach you respect for your elders?

Didba represents our future.  You on the other hand, represent the past.

[PUB78 1,358]

17 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Didba represents our future.  You on the other hand, represent the past.

Sadly this is true, butso are you.😵

[Leftfield 2,598]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

I can see you’re not a history buff.  The Indian War against the Comanche started in and around 1867.  Why is that date significant?  Well, it was 2 years after the Civil War ended and Johnson sent troops to the Southwest to protect the railroad workers from Indian raids.  Does this sound like Christians banding together to run the Indian population off their land?

Later Grant upped the ante against the Comanche that basically ended that war.  Neither of these men had religion as their driving force.  Now there may have been people under their command that tried to rally their troops to fight because of religion, but that is a different story.

As to the grow up part:  people really like to show their virtue by pointing out what you attempted to do.  It is childish, in my opinion, as it doesn’t move any needle with me.  I’m sure people can see how virtuous you are just by your posts.

I don’t have time for this today, so have a good weekend.

Lol....."I don't have time for this, but here's a diatribe on why you're a rube."

I'm sure you realize I was talking about the overarching process of pushing out all Native Americans, largely because of a sense of entitlement by the invaders and often falsely justified by twisted religious interpretation. 

It's funny that you see my pointing out your lack of virtue as me "childishly" boasting about mine. You're right, I'm ignorant of the history of the Comanche, so congratulations on finding an esoteric joke that just happens to dovetail with your defense of your cluelessness: You're a scholar and a comic genius.