Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8951 total)
757 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, GDR, Hyroglyphx, jar, JonF, marc9000, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (8 members, 749 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,893 Year: 21,929/19,786 Month: 492/1,834 Week: 492/315 Day: 88/82 Hour: 3/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15629
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 1351 of 1484 (841549)
10-15-2018 5:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1350 by Faith
10-15-2018 5:02 AM


Re: gay marriage not gays
There are numerous points I could raise here, but there is one that even you cannot dispute. The U.S. Constitution is not binding on the U.K.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1350 by Faith, posted 10-15-2018 5:02 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1352 by Faith, posted 10-15-2018 5:27 AM PaulK has not yet responded
 Message 1353 by Faith, posted 10-15-2018 5:54 AM PaulK has responded
 Message 1356 by caffeine, posted 10-15-2018 1:26 PM PaulK has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33856
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1352 of 1484 (841550)
10-15-2018 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1351 by PaulK
10-15-2018 5:22 AM


Re: gay marriage not gays
I guess I wasn't paying attention to the context, I thought he was talking about the US law.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1351 by PaulK, posted 10-15-2018 5:22 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33856
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1353 of 1484 (841551)
10-15-2018 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 1351 by PaulK
10-15-2018 5:22 AM


Re: gay marriage not gays
So the UK court wouldn't do us any good, and despite the temporary reprieve for Philips I really don't think the US courts are going to do any better in the end.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1351 by PaulK, posted 10-15-2018 5:22 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1354 by PaulK, posted 10-15-2018 5:58 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15629
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 1354 of 1484 (841552)
10-15-2018 5:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1353 by Faith
10-15-2018 5:54 AM


Re: gay marriage not gays
The courts won’t make religious belief carte blanche to ignore the law. And I hope that will continue to be the case in both countries.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1353 by Faith, posted 10-15-2018 5:54 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7189
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 1355 of 1484 (841553)
10-15-2018 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 1348 by Faith
10-15-2018 3:56 AM


Re: What God said about Marriage
Faith writes:

Christians know it means God ordained marriage between a man and a woman and anything else is against His ordinance.

*Some* Christians *believe* that. However, that's not rhe words in your book. Other Christians believe differently.

Whatever you think, this is what these business owners are acting on.

I know what they're acting on - a set of 2,000 year old folk stories.

I guess you can refuse to accept it and punish them for it, but it's still what they are going to act on whatever you say or do about it.

That's their choice.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1348 by Faith, posted 10-15-2018 3:56 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1357 by Faith, posted 10-15-2018 1:51 PM Tangle has responded

  
caffeine
Member
Posts: 1728
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008
Member Rating: 5.7


(1)
Message 1356 of 1484 (841567)
10-15-2018 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1351 by PaulK
10-15-2018 5:22 AM


Re: gay marriage not gays
There are numerous points I could raise here, but there is one that even you cannot dispute. The U.S. Constitution is not binding on the U.K.

UK law enshrines freedom of belief as well of course, although the ECHR notes that

quote:
Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Limits to freedoms are perfectly sensible, since we're all agreed that you can't use religious belief as a legal justification for human sacrifice or something. But I always think the exceptions permitted in the convention are worded far too broadly. The above clause (and there are similar for most rights) seems to me to give an intelligent judge a Get Out of Jail Free card on which he can justify almost any violation of freedoms he feels like. This is why some countries in Europe have been able to ban the wearing of burkas in public, for example. This is interesting because the European Court of Human Rights rejected the French state's argument that a ban was necessary for security reasons, but accepted this, to me, bizarre argument:

quote:
The Court takes into account the respondent State’s point that the face plays an important role in social interaction. It can understand the view that individuals who are present in places open to all may not wish to see practices or attitudes developing there which would fundamentally call into question the possibility of open interpersonal relationships, which, by virtue of an established consensus, forms an indispensable element of community life within the society in question. The Court is therefore able to accept that the barrier raised against others by a veil concealing the face is perceived by the respondent State as breaching the right of others to live in a space of socialisation which makes living together easier.

Forgive the digression.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1351 by PaulK, posted 10-15-2018 5:22 AM PaulK has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33856
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1357 of 1484 (841569)
10-15-2018 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1355 by Tangle
10-15-2018 6:11 AM


Re: What God said about Marriage
Yeah, well if SOME Christians understand gay marriage to be a violation of those scripture references, who happen to be in fact the ones who refuse to serve a gay wedding, most others not having a problem with it, since they aren't really Christians in my opinion, but anyway, those who do refuse on the basis of our biblical religion, are the ones targeted by the law. And I see that you really have no respect whatever for freedom of religion, so we can just throw that biblical ordinance out the window, right?

There's only one issue here although it keeps getting twisted out of recognition: either the scripture we regard as God's ordinance of marriage is respected by the secular law as it always used to be, or it isn't and we are headed full bore back to paganism. All the rest of this nonsensical discussion is irrelevant and should have been over long long ago.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1355 by Tangle, posted 10-15-2018 6:11 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1358 by Tangle, posted 10-15-2018 4:35 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7189
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 1358 of 1484 (841582)
10-15-2018 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1357 by Faith
10-15-2018 1:51 PM


Re: What God said about Marriage
Faith writes:

Yeah, well if SOME Christians understand gay marriage to be a violation of those scripture references, who happen to be in fact the ones who refuse to serve a gay wedding, most others not having a problem with it, since they aren't really Christians in my opinion,

SOME, is in fact, the vast majotity. You cooks are a diminishing minority.

but anyway, those who do refuse on the basis of our biblical religion, are the ones targeted by the law.

Nobody, but nobody gives a flying fuck about you and yours. Really. Nobody is targeting anybody. All that's happening is that society is creating laws that give everyone an equal chance.

And I see that you really have no respect whatever for freedom of religion, so we can just throw that biblical ordinance out the window, right?

Well you're half right. I have zero respect for your beliefs. In fact, I have negative respect for them. But I respect your right to have them.

There's only one issue here although it keeps getting twisted out of recognition: either the scripture we regard as God's ordinance of marriage is respected by the secular law as it always used to be, or it isn't and we are headed full bore back to paganism.

Well that's obviously garbage. There didn't 'used to be' secular law; that's a very modern thing, but more importantly, the alternative to your primitive beliefs is not paganism.

All the rest of this nonsensical discussion is irrelevant and should have been over long long ago.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1357 by Faith, posted 10-15-2018 1:51 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6832
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 6.9


Message 1359 of 1484 (855287)
06-18-2019 11:47 AM


SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
From The New York Times:

Supreme Court Won’t Rule on Clash Between Another Bakery and a Gay Couple

For the second time, the Supreme Court refuse to rule on an appeal by bakers of wedding cakes against their states' anti-discrimination laws.

As we recall, reading above in this thread, in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that a baker's religious rights were violated because members of the adjudicating body acted like assholes. But they never ruled on the direct question on where bakers can be compelled to provide service to gay couples' weddings.

Since then, appeals courts have continue to uphold states' anti-discrimination laws. In this second case, a baker in Oregon similarly was fined for violating the state's anti-discrimination laws. The Supreme Court has refuse to hear the case, so the lower courts' judgement against the baker will stand.

In this case, the Court was being asked to overturn Employment Division v. Smith, where

in a majority opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court ruled that neutral laws of general applicability could not be challenged on the ground that they violated the First Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion.

It says something about the qualities of our current president that the best argument anyone has made in his defense is that he didn’t know what he was talking about. -- Paul Krugman

Replies to this message:
 Message 1360 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-18-2019 3:18 PM Chiroptera has responded
 Message 1361 by AZPaul3, posted 06-18-2019 3:20 PM Chiroptera has acknowledged this reply

  
Hyroglyphx
Member
Posts: 5867
From: Austin, TX
Joined: 05-03-2006
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 1360 of 1484 (855299)
06-18-2019 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1359 by Chiroptera
06-18-2019 11:47 AM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
For the second time, the Supreme Court refuse to rule on an appeal by bakers of wedding cakes against their states' anti-discrimination laws.

As we recall, reading above in this thread, in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that a baker's religious rights were violated because members of the adjudicating body acted like assholes. But they never ruled on the direct question on where bakers can be compelled to provide service to gay couples' weddings.

Since then, appeals courts have continue to uphold states' anti-discrimination laws. In this second case, a baker in Oregon similarly was fined for violating the state's anti-discrimination laws. The Supreme Court has refuse to hear the case, so the lower courts' judgement against the baker will stand.

Its a tough case, as they pointed out in their ruling that they “must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market” and was reiterated in Obergfell v Hodges that their decision “inevitably requires this court to decide whether that newly recognized marriage right can be wielded not only as a shield in defense of same-sex unions but also — as in this case — a sword to attack others for adhering to traditional religious beliefs about marriage.”

I think the Court recognizes that no matter which way they decide that somebody is going to feel alienated or infringed upon. Of course, if I was gay and wanted to be married I certainly wouldn't want to give my money to a shop that doesn't recognize me or my marriage as valid. On the other hand, money is still green... what do I care if the cake says Adam and Steve versus Adam and Eve as long as they are paying customers?

Three times the same shop has gone to court... seems obvious that groups are more than happy to use them as a guinea pig if it advances an agenda while other groups are more than happy to offer free legal services if it advances their agenda.

Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1359 by Chiroptera, posted 06-18-2019 11:47 AM Chiroptera has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1362 by PaulK, posted 06-18-2019 3:49 PM Hyroglyphx has responded
 Message 1363 by Faith, posted 06-18-2019 5:12 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded
 Message 1375 by Chiroptera, posted 06-18-2019 10:04 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4781
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 1361 of 1484 (855300)
06-18-2019 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1359 by Chiroptera
06-18-2019 11:47 AM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
So you're saying that a christian does not have to become gay to make a gay wedding cake?

So much for an artist becoming their work but ok if the courts so choose.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1359 by Chiroptera, posted 06-18-2019 11:47 AM Chiroptera has acknowledged this reply

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15629
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 1362 of 1484 (855304)
06-18-2019 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1360 by Hyroglyphx
06-18-2019 3:18 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
I don’t think it is that tough.

First, there is precedent, as cited above.


in a majority opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court ruled that neutral laws of general applicability could not be challenged on the ground that they violated the First Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion.

Second, the First Amendment was never intended to make religious belief a carte blanche. It recognises that government does have a right to restrict actions:


...The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg

Thomas Jefferson Notes on the State of Virginia

Third, allowing religious belief to overrule anti-discrimination laws would gut them. There are still segregationists who hold that segregation of the races is a Christian doctrine.

I doubt that anyone on the Court wants to overturn precedent and open a massive can of worms. And overturning the lower court’s decision would do that. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Conservatives were all against hearing it because they didn’t want to be placeD in the position of affirming that decision.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1360 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-18-2019 3:18 PM Hyroglyphx has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1371 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-18-2019 6:10 PM PaulK has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33856
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1363 of 1484 (855316)
06-18-2019 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1360 by Hyroglyphx
06-18-2019 3:18 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
... whether that newly recognized marriage right can be wielded not only as a shield in defense of same-sex unions but also — as in this case — a sword to attack others for adhering to traditional religious beliefs about marriage.”

That certainly says it.

It's probably going to get worse though. Simply expressing the opinion that gay marriage is a violation of God's law could become subject to punitive action.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1360 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-18-2019 3:18 PM Hyroglyphx has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1364 by ringo, posted 06-18-2019 5:17 PM Faith has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17653
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 1364 of 1484 (855317)
06-18-2019 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 1363 by Faith
06-18-2019 5:12 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
Faith writes:

Simply expressing the opinion that gay marriage is a violation of God's law could become subject to punitive action.


There's no need to punish you for that. We just need to point out that you apply "God's laws" hypocrytically and unequally.

All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis
That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1363 by Faith, posted 06-18-2019 5:12 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1365 by Faith, posted 06-18-2019 5:19 PM ringo has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33856
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 1365 of 1484 (855318)
06-18-2019 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1364 by ringo
06-18-2019 5:17 PM


Re: SCOTUS refuses to hear about "gay wedding cakes"
Oh we'll be punished for it. I wonder if they'd put someone my age in a cell for that crime.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1364 by ringo, posted 06-18-2019 5:17 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1366 by ringo, posted 06-18-2019 5:22 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 1367 by Tangle, posted 06-18-2019 5:40 PM Faith has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019