Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,077 Year: 5,334/9,624 Month: 359/323 Week: 203/160 Day: 20/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gay Marriage as an attack on Christianity
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 114 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(6)
Message 105 of 1484 (802223)
03-13-2017 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Faith
03-12-2017 7:23 AM


Eighth time, Faith
Faith writes:
quote:
A wedding cake is usually a custom affair made especially for the occasion
Not any more than any other cake.
Remember, Faith: I used to be a cake decorator. There is nothing special about creating a wedding cake other than the person who is buying it from you has told you, "It's my wedding cake." There is no special ingredient you use to make a wedding cake that isn't used for any other cake you might make. There is no wedding fondant, no special way you make wedding roses out of icing, no wedding eggs to use in the batter, no wedding sugar that will immediately burn if you dare to use it for a birthday.
quote:
according to specifications given by the customer
Just like every other cake. "I need a cake for my kid's birthday, sports themed. She's really into the Pittsburgh Steelers, so can you do black icing? I'd like a football helmet...."
There's nothing unique about a wedding cake. The only reason you even know it's a "wedding" cake is if the person tells you.
quote:
it's not a generic cake you can buy from the display case.
Actually, it is. Oh, the baker may want you to think that you're getting some sort of magical process (remember...the "wedding tax"? The wedding industry is filled with unscrupulous people who will overcharge you for their services the moment you use the "w" word) But, a cake is a cake. If they could make the thing beforehand and have a significant enough turnover so that it wouldn't go stale by the time it was bought, that's precisely how wedding cakes would be sold.
Other than the timing, that's precisely what is done: You will notice that most wedding cakes look an awful lot alike: Either round or square sheets, covered with some sort of fondant (these days...I remember when icing was still used), and then decorated with various frills. The only reason it isn't made beforehand is because it isn't actually going to be delivered until months from now. It's not like the baker has to individually create each cake pan mold for each cake.
quote:
It's also not like a birthday cake since Christians have no reason to object to gays or anybody else celebrating a birthday.
And yet, some do. Some Christians do have plenty of reasons to object to gay people celebrating a birthday. That's what these "religious freedom" laws specifically allow: Any business owner can refuse to provide services to gay people due to their "religious freedom."
So when the Civil Rights Act passed and segregation ended and various businesses insisted that their religious freedoms were being violated by having to serve black people, were they justified in doing so, Faith? Does "religious freedom" include being able to deny black people service?
Because that actually happened, Faith. Remember Loving v. Virginia? The lower courts ruled against them specifically stating that god didn't want the races to mix:
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
That's what the county court judge, Leon M. Bazile, wrote, Faith.
Once again, we see your political correctness: You're PC enough to despise being thought of as a racist...
...and even more PC enough to relish being thought of as a homophobe.
quote:
What they can't have from a Christian baker is a special order for a gay wedding because that puts the baker in the position of treating the wedding as legitimate
Still waiting on your detailed description about how anybody else can "validate" someone else's marriage. After all, you're not the one getting married nor are you the officiant performing the ceremony. You're just a salesman being asked to do your job just as you would for any other customer. If you open your business to the public, you don't get to complain when the public shows up. If you want to pick and choose your clients, then you need to establish your business as a private contractor, not as a public accommodation.
Back to the race, question, Faith: Would a business be able to claim a "religious freedom" exemption from anti-discrimination laws on the basis of race? If an interracial couple came in asking for a wedding cake, would the proprietor be allowed to say, "No. God says the races shouldn't mix and I wouldn't want to 'validate' your marriage"?
If that's a bogus argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly become legitimate when applied to sexual orientation?
Or what about religion? Would a business be able to claim a "religious freedom" exemption from anti-discrimination laws on the basis of religion? If a Jewish couple came in asking for a wedding cake, would the proprietor be allowed to say, "No. God says Jews killed Jesus and I wouldn't want to 'validate' your marriage"?
If that's a bogus argument when applied to religion, why does it suddenly become legitimate when applied to sexual orientation?
quote:
God has decreed what marriage is
Funny...I'm looking at the marriage contract for various states and I don't see anything about god in there. God didn't write the law. It seems that humans did.
So when people claimed that god made the races separate and didn't want them mixing, were we wrong to ignore that?
Do you honestly think you get to claim that god allows you to break the law when you don't like it?
quote:
that makes gay marriage a slap in God's face, which we will not participate in.
And how fortunate you are that nobody's asking you to participate. You're just being asked to do the job you consciously, deliberately, and purposefully said you would do for anybody who walked through the door.
Do you truly not understand what "open to the public" means in regard to a business, Faith? It specifically means you don't get to say no to the customer. If you want to pick and choose who your clients are, then you must run your business as a private contractor. Even then, you still have certain legal regulations you must comply with, but you will have much more freedom to say no.
Question: Do you think anti-discrimination laws are valid? Should a business have the right to deny service based upon a person's race? Sex? Religion?
If not, why would they be allowed to do so based upon a person's sexual orientation?
quote:
The same is true for a florist asked to design arrangements for a gay wedding.
Precisely. There is nothing special about a wedding that changes the way the flowers are managed. You opened your business to the public, so you don't get to complain when the public shows up. Just as you would be in violation of the law if you denied a black couple or a Jewish couple, you are in violation of the law if you denied a gay couple.
Unless you're saying that you should be allowed to refuse service to blacks and Jews.
Are you, Faith? Do business owners have the right to deny service on the basis of race or religion?
quote:
quote:
Do you think you have a religious exemption to the law?
Why is this so hard to understand?
Because you keep avoiding the question. It's a simple yes-or-no, but you have yet to answer it.
Do you think you have a religious exemption to the law?
quote:
Are you unaware that we were a Christian society up until very recently, which would never have dreamed of legalizing something as antichristian as "gay marriage?"
Are you unaware that we were never a Christian society?
Have you forgotten that we as a society up until very recently would never have dreamed of legalizing something as anti-Christian as "interracial marriage"?
Remember, Faith: That was the judgement of the court in Loving v. Virginia:
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
Have you forgotten that we as a society up until very recently would never have dreamed of legalizing something as anti-Christian as equal treatment under the law? It's why we had segregation laws, Faith. And when they were struck down, people claimed "religious persecution" as if they had a religious exemption to the law.
Do you think you have a religious exemption to the law, Faith?
If it was a bogus argument when people tried to do so regarding race, what makes you think you're going to be able to get away with it with regard to sexual orientation?
Is it "paganism" to allow blacks to marry? Was there any "religious freedom" lost when the law slapped down those people who invoked god as their exemption to anti-discrimination laws?
Do you think you have a religious exemption to the law, Faith?
There are still country clubs in this country that are whites-only, Faith. And they are perfectly legal because the club is set up as a private institution that isn't open to the public.
But the public golf course doesn't get to keep the blacks out. Why? Precisely because it is a "public" golf course. It is "open to the public." Do you not understand what that means? When you open your business to the public, you gain the advantage of having anybody be a potential client. You are able to accept anybody who walks through the door. Rather than having to do all the work of finding your clients yourself, you can advertise your business to the public at large.
And the responsibility you have for that freedom is that you don't get to say no to the people who show up. When you open your business to the public, you don't get to complain when the public shows up.
If you want to pick and choose your clients, if you want to tell people no, if you want to be able to sit in judgement of the people who would seek to contract your services, you must remain a private contractor. You'll give up the freedom to have anybody as your client. You'll have to seek out your customer base on your own.
But, you'll be able to tell someone who seeks to contract your services, "No. I don't wish to do business with you."
quote:
Capiche?
Well, since you still haven't answered the question, no.
How does one "validate" a marriage if you aren't the one performing the sacrament?
Do your religious proclivities allow you to deny interracial couples? Would you be "validating" "race-mixing" by doing so?
Edited by Rrhain, : Dropped a "no"
Edited by Rrhain, : "County," not "country"
Edited by Rrhain, : Dropped a not, fixed a comma splice, typo
Edited by Rrhain, : "You're," not "Your"

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Faith, posted 03-12-2017 7:23 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 781 by mike the wiz, posted 04-01-2017 7:22 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 114 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 107 of 1484 (802226)
03-13-2017 5:43 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Faith
03-12-2017 4:56 PM


Re:
Faith writes:
quote:
Actually, strictly speaking it isn't a law and shouldn't be regarded as a law because it was initiated by the Supreme Court, not the legislature in one of the many usurpings of law the SCOTUS has become famous for. It's treated as law, however, it is enforced as law, even though it is in actual reality an illegal law.
So you feel the same way about Loving v. Virginia, right? It was a unanimous decision by the SCOTUS to strike down the miscegenation laws. But since it was the SCOTUS, that means it "shouldn't be regarded as a law," right? It's "one of the many usurpings of law the SCOTUS has become famous for," right?
Question, Faith: Suppose Congress were to unanimously pass and the President were to sign a law that said that you, specifically, were to become my personal slave, your life subject to my whim including my right to snuff it out should that be what I choose. What would you do?
Wouldn't you immediately run to the courts? Point out that there is a violation of your 13th Amendment rights regarding slavery? Include the fact that Article I, Section 9 prevents bills of attainder?
Or are you saying that you'd just happily accept your fate? After all, the Congress passed the law and the President signed it. How dare the SCOTUS come along and say it's unconstitutional and invalidate it?
Please, Faith, let us not play dumb.
"But," I hear you cry, "slavery is mentioned in the Constitution! I don't see anything about marriage!"
Of course. But then again, lots of things aren't mentioned in the Constitution that we understand it protects. After all, the Eighth Amendment only says that you are protected from "excessive bail," "excessive fines," and "cruel and unusual punishment." What does that mean? Who gets to decide if it's beyond the pale? Are you seriously claiming that if Congress passed and the President signed a law that said jaywalking was to be punished by either a $20M fine or the death penalty, you'd accept it? After all, the Constitution doesn't say anything about jaywalking or what should be the punishment for it.
It's a simple question, Faith: What's the point of having a Constitution if there isn't anybody who is charged with determining if it has been violated? If the Constitution says that certain things are not supposed to happen, how do we know when it did and what are we supposed to do?
Instead, you've fallen for the political correctness of your conservatism: "Usurping of the law" is nothing more than a euphemism for "I don't like the ruling."
Which brings us back to the original point:
Do you think you have a religious exemption to the law? After all, that's what people claimed during the Civil Rights Era. When segregation was banned (by Supreme Court ruling), people insisted that their religious freedoms were being violated.
Were they right?
Was the Supreme Court wrong to invalidate segregation laws?
Was Loving v. Virginia wrongly decided? The Supreme Court declared marriage to be a fundamental right. Were they wrong to do so? They decided that laws preventing interracial couples from being married were a violation of the 14th Amendment and it's requirement of due process under the law.
Does the 14th Amendment not apply to gay people? They don't have the same fundamental rights as straight people? Gays aren't "persons" and thus aren't subject to the Constitution's protections?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Faith, posted 03-12-2017 4:56 PM Faith has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 114 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 108 of 1484 (802228)
03-13-2017 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Faith
03-12-2017 5:05 PM


Re: related issues
Faith writes:
quote:
There are in fact Muslim bakeries and someone went into one with a hidden camera and asked for a wedding cake for him and his male partner and the owner said he wouldn't do it.
Ah, yes. Steven Crowder.
You know there's more to the story than his edited video, yes?
Specifically: Nobody refused him.
In one part of his "expose," he goes to a bread factory and demands a wedding cake. They point out that they don't do cakes and that if he wants a wedding cake, he can go to the place across the street. But if they want any of the other pastries they make, sure.
And here's the thing: Let's assume that he was turned away by a Muslim baker because it was a "gay" wedding cake. Did he sue? After all, he's the aggrieved party. Do you not understand what "standing" means? The fact that you and I have heard about what happened to Crowder doesn't mean that we have the right to sue anybody. Crowder does, though, as he was the one it happened to.
What makes you think anybody who supports equal treatment under the law would balk at the idea of a Muslim baker refusing to comply with anti-discrimination laws? Have you fallen for your political correctness again?
So let me help disabuse you of your political correctness: Even Muslim bakers who would refuse to serve gay couples in defiance of the anti-discrimination laws that regulate their business (remember, not all states have such laws...most don't), then they also deserve to be sued for said violation.
There is no religious exemption to the law.
Do you think you have a religious exemption to the law, Faith?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Faith, posted 03-12-2017 5:05 PM Faith has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 114 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 109 of 1484 (802229)
03-13-2017 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Tangle
03-12-2017 5:47 PM


Re: related issues
Tangle writes:
quote:
There are activist gays that think that they can make progress by outing law breaking bigots. Personally, I think they are doing more harm than good.
So the bus strike, the lunch counter sit-ins, Rosa Parks, all of that was counter-productive? If you're just nice and wait for the bigots to do the right thing, they'll do so?
Please. Rights are never voluntarily given. They must be fought for and defended. If the majority is treating the minority with respect to their rights, it's because they don't see the minority as a threat. As soon as they do, however, rights go out the window.
quote:
And, they've won, so celebrate and let the bigots die out naturally.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!
You really think gay people have "won"? Texas is going through the process of enacting a law that allows the government to deny any rights of marriage to same-sex couples. The logic is that the Supreme Court has said they can't deny gay people from getting married, but that doesn't mean the state has to do anything for that marriage. Oh, mixed-sex couples will still get the rights of marriage, but same-sex couples won't.
South Dakota just had the governor sign a law permitting discrimination against gay people in adoption.
The entire point behind the "religious freedom" laws being bandied about in the states as well as Congress is to specifically allow people to discriminate against gay people by allowing a religious exemption.
The new health care bill that's going through: What do you think that's going to do to the gay community? It phases out prevention treatments for HIV such as PReP.
When Illinois screwed with its funding of Planned Parenthood, HIV infections skyrocketed because, despite what GOPers say, Planned Parenthood is often the only medical clinic in the county and with no place to get information and treatment, disease does what it does and spreads.
You don't really think the various anti-trans bills coursing through the states and the attempts to do the same at the federal level are just flukes, are you?
What exactly do you think it was that was "won"?
It's been 150 years since the end of the Civil War. Surely racism has ended because all the bigots died off, right?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Tangle, posted 03-12-2017 5:47 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Tangle, posted 03-14-2017 4:23 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 114 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(2)
Message 110 of 1484 (802230)
03-13-2017 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Faith
03-12-2017 7:52 PM


Re: related issues
Faith writes:
quote:
In reality probably a leftie false flag to mock and discredit the right.
Wow.
You were the one who brought him up and now you're saying he's a "false flag."
So that would mean you were false flagging the false flag.
And before you claim that no, you didn't, let me remind you of your post, Faith (Message 64):
There are in fact Muslim bakeries and someone went into one with a hidden camera and asked for a wedding cake for him and his male partner and the owner said he wouldn't do it.
Emphasis added. There's really only one person who did this: Steven Crouder. He's the host of podcast, "Louder with Crowder." He was a contributor to Fox, the Blaze, Glenn Beck, and Dana Loesch. The idea that he is some sort of "false flag" shows just how ignorant you are of your own source.
Let's see what I think happened: You, who admits that you don't do any homework on a subject before commenting, remember hearing something somewhere about some guy who tried to get Muslim bakers to deny him because he's gay in an attempt to show the hypocrisy of liberals for not being outraged when it was carried out by Muslims, thus proving some sort of "anti-Christian" bias.
But because you didn't actually do your homework, you didn't actually know who you were talking about or even see the video "evidence." You just heard about it, vaguely remembered it, and thought that we were all too stupid and ignorant to know what you were talking about and are just as incompetent when it comes to investigating your claim to see if it has any connection to reality.
So now that you've been burned by your own source (AGAIN!) you're trying to claim that that wasn't what you were talking about, hoping to high heaven that nobody notices that you haven't actually provided any evidence of your original claim.
You were talking about Steven Crowder, Faith.
And he lied about what happened.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Faith, posted 03-12-2017 7:52 PM Faith has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 114 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(3)
Message 111 of 1484 (802231)
03-13-2017 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Faith
03-12-2017 8:02 PM


Re:
Faith writes:
quote:
There's a US law that says gay marriage is legal across the nation and that it must be accepted by all as legal and valid.
No, there isn't.
Instead, there is a ruling that says any laws that deny marriage to same-sex couples are invalid and cannot be enforced. The ruling of the SCOTUS didn't actually remove those laws from any of the books.
Remember Loving v. Virginia? It held the same for miscegenation laws. But guess what? Alabama kept its law prohibiting interracial couples from marrying until 2000.
And even then, 40% of the population voted to keep it.
Why?
Because the Supreme Court can change its mind. Surely you've heard of the Plessy v. Ferguson, yes? That was the decision that upheld segregation laws, declaring that "separate but equal" was perfectly fine by the Constitution.
It was overturned by the Brown v. Board of Education decision (among others).
The same thing can happen with any decision. Surely you remember Bower v. Hardwick which said that no, there is no right to private sexual conduct and Lawrence v. Texas that overturned it, yes?
So the various states that have the laws on the books denying the right of gay couples to marry have not taken the off the books out of hope that the SCOTUS will overturn the Obergefell decision.
Again, there is no law that says "gay marriage is legal." Instead, there is a ruling that any laws that do exist (and some states are trying to actively pass them right now in anticipation of an overturning) cannot be enforced.
quote:
Christians cannot in good conscience accept it as valid so when pressed to act in any way that implies agreement with it must refuse to do so.
They said the exact same thing in the Civil Rights Era when segregation was abolished, Faith.
Were they right to do so?
quote:
This puts us in violation of the law and subject to punishment.
Do you think you have a religious exemption to the law, Faith?
quote:
That is what this is all about. There's nothing more to it.
With regard to the law, yes.
With regard to your understanding of the law, we haven't even scratched the surface. Your profound ignorance of American governmental systems and how jurisprudence works is a primary obstacle, Faith.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Faith, posted 03-12-2017 8:02 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Faith, posted 03-13-2017 10:12 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 114 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 113 of 1484 (802233)
03-13-2017 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by NoNukes
03-13-2017 1:22 PM


Re: related issues
NoNukes writes:
quote:
The Defense of Marriage Act was a federal law that prevented states from having to recognize marriage in other states. Given that the constitution expressly requires states to recognize contracts made in other states, it was fairly obvious that the DOMA was never constitutional, to begin with.
Be careful there. That isn't quite true. *Especially* when it comes to marriage.
It's complicated, but there are scenarios that allow states to not recognize marriages performed in other states. For example, there is a "positive law" exception. This aspect came up in Martinez v County of Monroe regarding a Canadian same-sex couple in New York: There was no NY law expressly prohibiting the recognition of same-sex marriages performed outside of NY, so the "positive law" exception did not apply.
In fact, the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution has never been used to require a state to recognize a marriage performed in another state. The Loving v. Virginia case was decided not because of FFaC but because of 14th Amendment rights to due process and equal protection.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by NoNukes, posted 03-13-2017 1:22 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by NoNukes, posted 03-13-2017 8:16 PM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 114 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 122 of 1484 (802249)
03-14-2017 4:25 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by NoNukes
03-13-2017 8:16 PM


Re: related issues
NoNukes responds to me:
quote:
My understanding is that DOMA was enacted when it looked like Hawaii might allow gay marriage.
Yep, because Congress *never* passes redundant legislation.
quote:
I would argue that it would fare better now.
Given that there is precedent for marriages not really being as portable as we might think, that there is case law that allows one state to deny the marriage license of another state, I wouldn't be that confident. A law that is common in many states is that if the marriage being entered into would not be legal in the home state of the participants, then it is invalid. This was a problem when Massachusetts established marriage equality: The law in Massachusetts says that if your home state wouldn't let you get married, you can't get married in MA. Despite the fact that MA allows same-sex couples to get married, the law of another state affects whether or not it's valid. They are pro-actively denying your marriage in order to prevent people coming to MA just to get married and leave.
quote:
But isn't your example about a Canadian marriage?
Yes, but there is a similar concept regarding recognition of marriages from other countries in the law.
quote:
And isn't the case one that never made it to the Supreme Court, or in fact any federal court?
Yes, but because everybody understood there was no point.
Again, my point is that there is legal precedent that allows states to deny marriages from other states...to the point that they pro-actively stop you from getting married if it will be illegal when you get home.
Remember, we're dealing with justices who have no problem ignoring their own rulings. When Lawrence v. Texas was decided, Scalia directly stated that that decision necessarily required the recognition of same-sex marriage. So when Obergefell came before him, did he follow his own decision? Of course not.
This is the problem regarding the Texas attempt to undo Obergefell by saying that yeah, you can get married as a same-sex couple, but that doesn't mean we have to provide any rights to you. That's why the various states trying to pass "religious freedom" laws, as well as Congress trying to do so, are problematic: Yeah, you can get married, but you don't have any recourse if you are discriminated against for it. South Dakota just passed a law with the governor signed which allows gay people to be discriminated against based on "religious freedom."
Now, that exact line of reasoning was used against the end of segregation: To require businesses to treat black customers the same was a violation of "religious freedom." It wasn't accepted then, but we've already seen that the courts are happy to treat gay people as if the 14th Amendment doesn't apply (which Scalia said it doesn't.) Loving v. Virginia was a unanimous decision...Obergefell, despite being exactly the same case, was 5-4.
There is no guarantee that the court system would look to FFC with regard to marriage equality.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by NoNukes, posted 03-13-2017 8:16 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by NoNukes, posted 03-14-2017 5:25 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 114 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 123 of 1484 (802250)
03-14-2017 5:15 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Tangle
03-14-2017 4:23 AM


Re: related issues
Tangle responds to me:
quote:
Campaign hard until you win the main battle, then calm down dear.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
As if marriage equality were "the main battle."
That's precious. You really believe that, don't you?
You do realize that in more than half the US, the right to get married means the right to get fired, lose your housing, be denied education, etc., yes? Most of the country provides no protections against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. So if you get married, your boss is perfectly free to then fire you since you just came out.
quote:
The real bigots won't change, you need the hearts and minds of the average guy to change to actually make the difference.
And they will never change until they are confronted. The most effective thing we have found regarding getting people to become supportive of the "other" is to actually know someone. And that means demanding that they treat you with the respect and dignity they treat others. If you allow yourself to be a doormat, they won't have any reason to stop treating you like one.
quote:
You only way to do that is to become the norm - nice, ordinary and everyday. Nothing to see here.
Completely wrong.
"Nothing to see" means you're not seen. And when you're not seen, nobody cares when you are trampled upon.
quote:
Yes. Well at least here in the UK - can't really speak for the USA but it seems to me that they have what they wanted now enshrined in law.
Oh? There's still no marriage equality in Northern Ireland. And we have touched the overseas territories (the Caribbean territories, for example, are very far behind.) And many of the reforms in the UK have only come after fights going to the European Union.
quote:
While there are still battles to be won, it seems a better tactic to me to fight those specific battles not bugger about with cakes and bakers.
And how is "cakes and bakers" not precisely those battles? As we call it here in the US: Equal treatment under the law. That means when the anti-discrimination statutes cover sexual orientation, then the "cakes and bakers" don't get to discriminate against you. For every time you allow an exception, you invite a claim for another exception.
quote:
quote:
What exactly do you think it was that was "won"?
See above.
You haven't actually mentioned anything other than marriage.
You didn't really think that was "the main battle," did you?
quote:
The battle against racism is being won but it takes time and perseverance to change the majority mind.
But slavery is over. We "won the main battle" so now we "calm down," right? I mean, there are laws preventing discrimination so we can "calm down," right? Why should anybody who is rejected from a hotel for being black put up a fight since the "main battle" of getting the anti-discrimination laws were won? Blacks should "become the norm - nice, ordinary, and everyday," making sure there's "nothing to see here" by daring to demand that those laws be enforced.
quote:
It's a matter of tactics what approach you take to do that but misplaced activism may do more harm than good.
I'll just leave this here:
If only the gay people could be *nicer,* the bigots wouldn't be so nasty to them!

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Tangle, posted 03-14-2017 4:23 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Tangle, posted 03-14-2017 7:10 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 114 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 125 of 1484 (802252)
03-14-2017 5:28 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Faith
03-13-2017 9:46 PM


Re: God's marriage ordinance
Faith writes:
quote:
But gay marriage violates the meaning of marriage itself and this situation doesn't so it might not become a problem in the baker's mind.
But interracial marriage violates the meaning of marriage itself.
Does the baker get to have a religious exemption to the law?
quote:
But it's possible that a baker's conscience might also be engaged about a remarriage, I suppose it depends on the individual.
Anti-discrimination laws also protect on the basis of marital status. Does that mean the Catholic baker gets to deny divorcees?
Do you think you have a religious exemption to the law?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Faith, posted 03-13-2017 9:46 PM Faith has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 114 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(5)
Message 126 of 1484 (802253)
03-14-2017 6:30 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Faith
03-13-2017 10:12 PM


Fifth time, Faith
Faith responds to me:
quote:
I'm not interested in the intricacies of the law.
Let me see if I understand: You are whining about anti-discrimination law and your ethical duty to follow the llaw and you now claim you aren't interested in the law?
Well, no wonder you're having such trouble.
And no wonder why you're avoiding my direct question. I'm pretty sure this is at least the fifth time I've asked:
Do you think you have a religious exemption to the law?
quote:
All that matters in this discussion is whether a Christian can legally refuse to serve a gay marriage in any way that violates his/her conscience, and I've understood that legally they cannot -- anywhere in the country.
But you just said you weren't interested in the law. And now you say you are. Which is it?
Back in the Civil Rights Era when segregation laws were overturned, Christians claimed that their religious freedom was violated, they claimed that they should be legally allowed to refuse to serve black people in any way that violates their conscience.
They were slapped down.
Was that wrong? Should Christians be allowed to deny blacks service based upon their conscience?
Do you think you have a religious exemption to the law?
If you think you don't get to deny blacks, what makes you think you get to deny gays?
quote:
quote:
They said the exact same thing in the Civil Rights Era when segregation was abolished, Faith.
SO WHAT? That is utterly irrelevant.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you?
Faith, it's precisely the same argument. The very same arguments being used against gays now are the ones that were used against blacks then.
If it wasn't OK to allow Christians to deny blacks service based upon the conscience, why is it suddenly legitimate to allow them to deny gays?
quote:
They were wrong because as I said already the Bible teaches that we are all descended from the same parents.
Says who? According to other Christians, it also says that blacks have the sin of Ham and thus are to be slaves.
Have you forgotten that you are not the only Christian in the world? Are you about to invoke "No True Christian"?
The fact remains that Christians claimed that to serve blacks equally as whites was a violation of their religious conscience. They were slapped down.
Was that wrong?
If it's wrong for Christians to claim a religious exemption to anti-discrimination laws with regard to blacks, why does it suddenly become legitimate with regard to race?
How lovely that you, personally, don't think that Christians get to claim a religious exemption when it comes to race (though we both know that you don't really believe that.)
The question is: If your religious conscience gets to be ignored due to race, why does it get to reign over sexual orientation?
quote:
If they wanted to claim their conscience was wounded, however, that's up to them, but obviously they'd have to take the punishment exactly as i'm describing in this situation.
So since the situation with gays now is identical to the situation with blacks then, why do you demand disparate treatment?
If it's a bogus argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly become legitimate when applied to sexual orientation?
quote:
quote:
Were they right to do so?
NO! NOT ON THE BASIS OF BIBLICAL DOCTRINE!
Says who? You? Why should we believe you? According to other Christians, it also says that blacks have the sin of Ham and thus are to be slaves.
Have you forgotten that you are not the only Christian in the world? Are you about to invoke "No True Christian"?
The fact remains that Christians claimed that to serve blacks equally as whites was a violation of their religious conscience. They were slapped down.
Was that wrong?
If it's wrong for Christians to claim a religious exemption to anti-discrimination laws with regard to blacks, why does it suddenly become legitimate with regard to race?
quote:
I've said that at least twice now in this discussion.
And so long as you try to invoke "No True Christian," you'll keep failing.
Yes, Faith, it's lovely that you, personally, don't think that Christians get to claim a religious exemption when it comes to race (though we both know that you don't really believe that.)
The question is: If your religious conscience gets to be ignored due to race, why does it get to reign over sexual orientation?
It's the exact same scenario. The very same Christians who were claiming that they had the right to deny blacks due to their religious freedom are saying they have the right to deny gays due to their religious freedom.
If it's a bogus argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly become legitimate when applied to sexual orientation?
Remember, Faith, you're complaining that somehow your religion is being denied. Well, don't we as people who have a different religion get to do that to you? Doesn't our religious freedom mean anything? Why do you think we should allow you to do something that you won't allow us to do? Rights are only for you? The "freedom" of "religious freedom" means the freedom to capitulate to you?
quote:
quote:
Do you think you have a religious exemption to the law, Faith?
DIDN'T I JUST WRITE THE WORDS "This puts us in violation of the law and subject to punishment."
What does that mean, Faith? After all, you're whining about it. You're complaining about having to accept the consequences of your actions.
Do the Christians who claim that serving blacks was a violation of their religious freedom have the ethical high ground? Or does religious freedom not include the right to racism in the public square?
And if it doesn't include the right to racism, why does it include the right to homophobia?
quote:
yet you ask if I think Christians have an exemption after I said that????
Yep. Because you haven't answered the essence of the question:
Is it right that Christians have to be "subject to punishment"? We have a conflict of interests here. We want there to be religious freedom, but we also want there to be equal protection. So when those two interests are in conflict, what do we do? When your claim of religious freedom violates another's claim to equal protection, how do we resolve it?
Well, we've got an example from the past: Blacks' right to equal protection was declared to be more important than Christians' claim to religious freedom and thus, despite the fact that Christians claimed that god declared the races to be different and needed to be kept separate (remember Loving v. Virginia?) they could not use that claim of religious freedom to deny service to blacks.
Equal protection was more important.
So now we have the exact same situation regarding sexual orientation. The identical arguments are being used. "God says."
So if "god says" is insufficient to deny equal protection with regard to race, why does it suddenly become legitimate with regard to sexual orientation?
Remember, Faith, YOU'RE WHINING ABOUT THIS. You're complaining about having to face the consequence of your actions with regard to sexual orientation.
So I want to know: Are you just as much of a whinger when it comes to race? Should a Christian who claims that "god says the races are to be separate" get to be surprised or claim any sort of ethical high ground for denying service to blacks? And if not, why do they suddenly get to do so regarding sexual orientation?
quote:
I think we SHOUJLD have an exemption, of course, and I think there should be no such law in the first place too, of course
Bingo! There you go! You think you SHOULD be allowed to deny service to black people based upon a religious exemption!
And you wonder why you get called out as a racist?
If you "SHOULD" be allowed to deny service to gays based upon your religious conscience, why "SHOULD YOU NOT" be allowed to deny service to blacks based upon your religious conscience? If you're going to allow "religious conscience" to override equal protection, why is the line at sexual orientation? What's to stop anybody from claiming "religious conscience" regarding any law?
What's the point of having laws if anybody can ignore them based upon their "religious conscience"?
We're back to the deep question, Faith: When religious freedom and equal protection are in conflict, what do we do?
quote:
BUT I KNOW CHRISTIANS HAVE NO EXEMPTION TO THIS LAW NOW. THAT'S WHAT THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION IS ALL ABOUT!
This discussion is you claiming that somehow you are being oppressed and you doing everything you can to deny your racism. That's why presented with the identical situation with regard to race, you try to deny, deny, deny.
The exact same arguments being used against gays now were used against blacks then.
Word for word.
So if it was bogus to allow religious freedom to override equal protection with regard to race, why does it suddenly become legitimate when applied to sexual orientation?
quote:
How have you managed to miss so much of this discussion?
Because you keep avoiding the question.
If it's bogus when applied to race, why does it suddenly become legitimate when applied to sexual orientation?
Or is it not bogus when applied to race? You *do* have the right to claim "religious freedom" and deny service to blacks?
quote:
This discussion is not about the law, it's about how one law affects Christians.
You realize that the second half of your sentence contradicts the former, yes? You cannot examine "how it affects Christians" without examining what the law is.
The exact same argument you are trying to use against gays was used against blacks.
If it was a bogus argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly become legitimate when applied to sexual orientation?
Or is it not bogus when applied to race? You *do* have the right to claim "religious freedom" and deny service to blacks?
quote:
Just follow the argument for pete's sake.
We've been begging you to do that since day one, Faith.
If Christians don't get to claim "religious freedom" when denying services to blacks, if they don't get to claim any sort of ethical high ground, then what lets them claim "religious freedom" when denying services to gays?
Or *do* they have the ethical high ground? Religious freedom trumps equal treatment? What's the point of having any laws of any kind if people can simply claim their religion grants them an exemption?
Are you saying anti-discrimination laws are unethical?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Faith, posted 03-13-2017 10:12 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Faith, posted 03-14-2017 6:57 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 114 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 127 of 1484 (802254)
03-14-2017 6:47 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Faith
03-14-2017 1:14 AM


Re: Just more made up accusations to distract from the simple point
Faith responds to PaulK:
quote:
asked to perform a special service for a gay wedding
What are these "special services" you keep claiming? Baking a cake, arranging flowers, taking pictures, etc. are not "special services." Nothing about a wedding changes the service.
What on earth are you talking about? The only people who have a claim are the people getting married and the person performing the ceremony. Clearly, the people involved are there because they want to be and as you know, the officiant can refuse if the ceremony is religious in nature.
No priest/rabbi/imam/minister/cleric/whatever has ever been forced to perform a wedding ceremony if they don't want to. That's why Catholic priests don't have to marry divorcees. It's why Orthodox Jewish rabbis don't have to marry Gentiles. It's why Orthodox Christian priests don't have to marry Protestants.
But the person making the cake isn't involved in the wedding. They aren't performing any sort of ceremony. The wedding will happen with or without a cake. It will happen with or without flowers. It will happen with or without pictures.
It won't happen without the people getting married or the one performing the ceremony.
quote:
or anything else that puts us in the position of treating gay marriage as legitimate
So anti-discrimination laws are a violation of your religious freedom?
So when Christians back in the Civil Rights Era claimed that they shouldn't be "put in the position of treating interracial marriage as legitimate," they should have been coddled? It was wrong for the law to say that no, equal protection trumps religious freedom?
Was Loving v. Virginia wrongly decided?
And if not, why are you complaining? If it's a bogus argument when applied to race, why does it suddenly become legitimate when applied to sexual orientation?
quote:
Christians have to refuse
Did you just invoke "No True Christian"?
You spend a lot of time, just as politically correct Fascists do, conjuring up anything you can to accuse liberals of. Everything in your post is a pathetic attempt to avoid the point of this topic.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Faith, posted 03-14-2017 1:14 AM Faith has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 114 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 133 of 1484 (802261)
03-14-2017 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Faith
03-14-2017 6:57 AM


Re: Fifth time, Faith
Faith responds to me:
quote:
ALL I NEED TO KNOW IS ABOUT THE ONE LAW I'M TALKING ABOUT, NOT ABOUT ALL THE LAWS YOU BROUGHT UP. ALL THAT IS ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT.
They're the same law. Anti-discrimination law includes both race and sexual orientation.
So if the law is OK with regard to race, why is it unacceptable with regard to sexual orientation?
Or should the law not exist at all?
And you wonder why you keep getting tagged as a racist?
quote:
quote:
The exact same argument you are trying to use against gays was used against blacks.
AGAIN, SO WHAT?
So if the argument is bogus when applied to race, why does it suddenly become legitimate when applied to sexual orientation?
quote:
IT IS EASY TO SHOW THAT GAY MARRIAGE IS FORBIDDEN BY GOD
Says who? There's nothing in the Bible that says two people of the same sex can't get married.
After all, the same Christians who are complaining about same-sex marriage today were making the exact same complaint about interracial marriage yesterday.
If that was bogus when they were trying to claim a religious exemption to anti-discrimination law when it was race, why do they get to be coddled when it's sexual orientation?
It's the exact same law, Faith. So why does your religious freedom need to yield to equal protection when it's race but not when it's sexual orientation?
quote:
AND AGAIN, YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT "SEXUAL ORIENTATION" WHICH MISSES THE POINT WHICH IS THAT IT'S GAY MARRIAGE THAT IS THE POINT.
The exact same arguments used to deny gay people the right to marry were used to deny interracial couples the right to marry. Have you forgotten Loving v. Virginia? The court directly stated that it was god's law that the races were to be kept separate.
Word for word.
So if the law didn't care about what some Christians thought god said about race, why should it care about what some Christians think god says about sexual orientation?
If Christians don't have any claim to the ethical high ground regarding race, what makes you think you have the ethical high ground regarding sexual orientation?
The law you're complaining about that protects gays from being discriminated against also protects you, Faith, because it also includes religion as a characteristic which cannot be used as a basis for disparate treatment. That same baker isn't allowed to deny you your cake or flowers or pictures just because your religion denies the One True God (you didn't think your god was the One True God, did you?)
So does the baker have the right to deny you services based off your religion, Faith? Is "religious freedom" only for you? Does it mean the freedom to convert to your religion?
Your political correctness is showing, Faith. You're PC enough to despise being thought of as racist...
...and even more PC to relish being thought of as homophobic.
And foolish enough to not understand what that means.
Should there be a law that prevents discrimination on the basis of race?
Should that law allow a religious exemption?
If there should be anti-discrimination law and if there should not be a religious exemption for it, what's the deal regarding sexual orientation?
Hint: When someone says, "gay marriage," they are referring to the sexual orientation of the married couple. After all, "marriage" doesn't have any sexual orientation.
I asked you nicely to please stop playing dumb.
Still waiting on the answer, Faith:
If it's a bogus argument to claim a "religious exemption" to anti-discrimination law on the basis of race, why does it suddenly become legitimate when applied to sexual orientation?
If it's a bogus argument to deny interracial couples the right to marriage based upon religious dogma, why does it suddenly become legitimate to deny gay couples the right to marriage based upon religious dogma?
After all, the same Christians who demanded the former and were slapped down. So why the whining now? It's the exact same situation: Your religious dogma doesn't get to override another person's right to equal protection under the law.
Or are you saying it does? Do you think you have a religious exemption to the Constitution? You get to deny other people their rights simply because you think god told you to?
What's to prevent them from doing the same to you, Faith?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Faith, posted 03-14-2017 6:57 AM Faith has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 114 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 134 of 1484 (802262)
03-14-2017 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Tangle
03-14-2017 7:10 AM


Re: related issues
Tangle responds to me:
quote:
quote:
And they will never change until they are confronted.
Wrong. Bigots remain bigots.
Then why do you care what anybody else does? If a bigot is never going to change, then it doesn't matter.
quote:
Society changes around them and it takes generations.
Yep. And the only way those generations will ever learn that the previous way of life was wrong is if people fight for the change, refusing to accept anything less.
quote:
See Faith.
But she's a bigot and bigots gonna bigot. And if she's never gonna change, what do you care? What does it matter?
quote:
quote:
"Nothing to see" means you're not seen. And when you're not seen, nobody cares when you are trampled upon.
Completly wrong. I guess we differ.
You never did answer my question. Let's try again:
Slavery was over in the 1950s. They "won the main battle," right? So why couldn't Rosa Parks just "calm down" and accept riding in the back of the bus? Why couldn't all those uppity blacks just "calm down" and accept that Woolworth's wasn't going to serve them? Why couldn't them uppity Negroes just "calm down" and follow the Negro Motorist Green Book? Why did they have to be so confrontational and make people uncomfortable and "turn off those who might support them"?
Because appeasement never works. We had to fight a damned war just to get white people to consider the possibility that maybe, just maybe, black people were human beings and not chattel.
quote:
When things become the norm it's a good thing.
That you think racial equality or sexual liberation is "the norm" is telling.
quote:
When everybody has the same rights and obligations and are seen as just another citizen, the problem has been solved.
What makes you think the problem has been solved? After all, not everybody has the same rights and obligations. not everybody is seen as "just another citizen."
quote:
There's planty of real campaigns to be fought by whatever means without taking principled stands against bigots that just make them look petty and unnecessarily aggressive.
And there we have it:
You think you're the arbiter of what is "petty."
I mean really, Ms. Parks. The back of the bus gets to the bus stop just as fast as the front. Aren't you being "petty" with your demand to sit in the front?
And the food at the diner that serves blacks is just as good as the food that only serves whites. Aren't you being "petty" with your demand to be served there?
And if you think the lunch counter sit ins weren't "petty," exactly how is that any different from gay people wishing to receive equal treatment at bakers and florists and photographers?
quote:
No but there is now for the rest of the UK thanks to long campaigning and a liberalising force across Northern Europe generally
That same fight that you are now calling "petty."
So, which is it?
quote:
now comes the backlash of course.
But I thought that now that they had "won the main battle" and thus could "calm down." If there's a backlash, shouldn't they keep fighting? Or would that be petty?
quote:
Now you're just being rediculous.
Strange...that's my argument to you. You seem to think you're the one who gets to determine what "petty" is, what "the main battle" is, when it has been "won," and when anybody else should just stop being so annoying in insisting on being treated equally.
quote:
At least here in the UK it's now impossible to ban anybody from a hotel based on their colour.
Right...because there's no racism in the UK....
Do you really need me to direct you to the cases of racial discrimination happening in the UK?
quote:
And of course if a hotel attempted to do that they'd find themselves in a lot of trouble and they'd suffer very publicly for it.
So a hotel being sued for discrimination is just hunky dory but a baker being sued for discrimination is "petty."
Got it.
quote:
It has become the norm not to discriminate in this way. This is a good thing.
And yet, it still happens. This is not a good thing.
But how lucky we are to have YOU tell us which fights are legitimate and which ones are "petty."
quote:
I'm not saying stop fighting for equality,
Oh, yes, you are. The moment you called it "petty," you said that people should stop. The moment you said, "calm down," you said that people should stop.
quote:
I'm saying pick the battles
...stop fighting.
quote:
and make sure they matter.
Because it isn't worth it. So stop fighting.
A hotel owner refusing to rent to a black man. That's worth it.
A baker refusing to sell to a gay couple. That's "petty."
quote:
Artificially targetting bigots on trivial issues doesn't help the cause.
I see...so the baker refusing to sell to the gay couple was what...a hallucination? They didn't really want to buy a cake? The wedding's fake? Exactly what is it that is "artificial"?
Oh, that's right...it's "trivial." A hotel refusing to rent to a black man is deserving of the law coming down on them hard.
But a baker? That's "petty." That's "trivial." That "doesn't help the cause."
As nicely as I can put this:
Fuck you.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Tangle, posted 03-14-2017 7:10 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Tangle, posted 03-14-2017 9:38 AM Rrhain has replied

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 114 days)
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(2)
Message 135 of 1484 (802263)
03-14-2017 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Faith
03-14-2017 7:21 AM


Re: Summary of Topic
Faith writes:
quote:
The law legalizing gay marriage contradicts God's ordinance of marriage. So whenever there is a conflict between the law and a Christian's conscience about the ordinance of marriage the Christian must refuse to obey the law. Since it is a law, that means the Christian will be punished in some way.
The law legalizing interracial marriage contradicts god's ordinance of marriage. So whenever there is a conflict between the law and a Christian's conscience about the ordinance of marriage, the Christian must refuse to obey the law.
Yeah, sounds racist, doesn't it? That's because it is. And when Christians tried to use that argument about interracial marriage, they were slapped down.
So since it's bogus when applied to race, why does it suddenly become legitimate when applied to sexual orientation?
Once again, you display your political correctness: You're PC enough to despise being thought of as racist...
...and even more PC enough to relish being thought a homophobe.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Faith, posted 03-14-2017 7:21 AM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024