Louisiana won't Recognize Same-Sex Marriages

[DConnell Member]

Yet these bakers DEMAND that anyone who refuse to bake cakes for Christians against their will be subjected to the same fate.

 

 

Wait, what?

 

Source?

[HawkMan]

Wait, what?

 

Source?

 

that wasn't an actual scenario he mean that say, if a world famous gay baker, wedding arranger, flower arranger, etc, refused to deliver to a wedding on the grounds that it was a christian wedding and he doesn't deliver to christians, it would be just as illegal.

 

on top of that, the uproar it would cause would blow the minor cause of the baker who refused the gay wedding out of the water. 

[DConnell Member]

that wasn't an actual scenario he mean that say, if a world famous gay baker, wedding arranger, flower arranger, etc, refused to deliver to a wedding on the grounds that it was a christian wedding and he doesn't deliver to christians, it would be just as illegal.

 

on top of that, the uproar it would cause would blow the minor cause of the baker who refused the gay wedding out of the water. 

 

In that case, I'd say the same thing I've been saying all along - a business should be able to decline any job or contract it so chooses. Especially if the vendor is needed to go to/participate in an event that they'd prefer not to.

 

If its just a case of baking a cake and having it picked up, then yeah, there's a problem. But if you need to be on site, actually involved in the event, then you have every right to choose if you want to be a part of it.

[TPreston]

Wait, what?

 

Source?

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/hce/caselist.php#relig

In that case, I'd say the same thing I've been saying all along - a business should be able to decline any job or contract it so chooses. Especially if the vendor is needed to go to/participate in an event that they'd prefer not to.

If its just a case of baking a cake and having it picked up, then yeah, there's a problem. But if you need to be on site, actually involved in the event, then you have every right to choose if you want to be a part of it.

Repeal this then we can talk, until then you are trying to have your cake and eat it too

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/hce/housing_title2.php

[DConnell Member]

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/hce/housing_title2.php

Repeal this then we can talk, until then you are trying to have your cake and eat it too

http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/hce/housing_title2.php

 

Not what I was asking for a source on. What instances of Christians trying to put non-Christian bakers out of business are you referring to?

 

Or was it hypothetical like Hawkman said? Because if you won't permit others to use hypothetical situations (you called mine a strawman as I recall) then you really shouldn't use them yourself.

[BinaryData]

I really don't like the Government telling us what to do. I don't like them involving themselves in church matters.

Isn't there supposed to be a separation of church and state?

 

I don't support gay marriage, I find it to be exactly what the bible says, an abomination. However, with that said, who you marry is none of my business. If you, yourself, are happy, who am I to deny you that? I'm sick of gay marriage and racism in the news. I don't give a flying sh** about it. I'm disgusted that you care more about gay marriage, and racism, than our government screwing us over.

Edit:

I find that those fighting for gay marriage, but bash a Christian for their belief, and refuse service, is a hypocrite. It's simple really. It's absolutely ridiculous that this is considered national news.

[TPreston]

Not what I was asking for a source on. What instances of Christians trying to put non-Christian bakers out of business are you referring to?

Oh so now we are limiting this just to bakers.

one question

Is it illegal to refuse service to a person on the basis of religion.

If you answer yes then you have 0 justification to demand that people with this protection from discrimination be allowed to discriminate

I really don't like the Government telling us what to do. I don't like them involving themselves in church matters.

Isn't there supposed to be a separation of church and state?

Civil marriage isn't a church matter.

[mudslag]

Two main things I'd say.  One, institutionally redefining the word marriage - the union between male and female and then calling it a right.

 

 

 

 

 

Just an FYI, the courts have called marriage a right, in a number of cases going all the way back to the 1800s. This is hardly the first time.

[TMYW]

Perhaps you should stop spewing undeserved ad hominem's. The only indication here of a poor argument is when you must resort to demeaning the opposition to make yourself look better. Come up with a logical argument for why time dictates correctness. Maybe in a social sense, but certainly not otherwise. And marriage is both a social and legal concept (both of which should be entirely separate of each other but aren't currently).

 

How is that an ad hominem? I used the word "unless". I'm giving the reason for accepting that words are defined by usage and convention as they always have been throughout history. If he wants to be viewed as a pouting, petulant child for not getting what he wants, then he's free to keep arguing that a word doesn't mean what convention dictates.

[DConnell Member]

Oh so now we are limiting this just to bakers.

one question

Is it illegal to refuse service to a person on the basis of religion.

If you answer yes then you have 0 justification to demand that people with this protection from discrimination be allowed to discriminate

 

YOU'RE the one who specified bakers, not me.

 

When you start answering my questions, I'll answer yours. Start with: Is it right to force someone to participate in an event that they do not wish to? You still haven't given me an answer on that one.

 

If you say no, then you have 0 justification to demand that businesses take jobs for that regardless of the wishes of the owners and employees.

 

And you still haven't backed up your claim that these Christian bakers are demanding that others be shut down. Stick to the facts, and stop dodging the argument.

[TPreston]

When you start answering my questions, I'll answer yours. Start with: Is it right to force someone to participate in an event that they do not wish to? You still haven't given me an answer on that one.

Yes if they offer a service to the public they cant discriminate. If you don't like that then please repeal the civil rights act.

[HawkMan]

In that case, I'd say the same thing I've been saying all along - a business should be able to decline any job or contract it so chooses. Especially if the vendor is needed to go to/participate in an event that they'd prefer not to.

 

If its just a case of baking a cake and having it picked up, then yeah, there's a problem. But if you need to be on site, actually involved in the event, then you have every right to choose if you want to be a part of it.

 

"We don't cater to people in wheel chairs because we don't want to build a ramp"

"we don't cater to black people because. well we just don't like you"

"We don't cater to people in tank tops because you're effin rednecks who rape your sisters."

"we don't cater to short people because we don't want to bend down and your the spawn of satan"

 

it's a business they're not allowed to discriminate and that's good. you can't say it's ok to discriminate if it's a onsite job. besides setting bad precedents it's beyond stupid. also thy can use any excuse they want to turn down the jobs. so they could turn down gay weddings and just don't say that's why. 

[Stoffel]

Words are concepts and ideas, so yes, I am really that hung up on the fundamental removal of that concept from language.  Instead, we now just have a new distinction, gay married.

 

Nothing I said has anything at all to do with the Bible or religion.  They are spoken from a secular perspective.  I'm curious as to your thoughts on my last question.  Particularly to poster below me that has, "...never been happier that we can file our taxes together now and that I can add her to my health insurance."  Its not about love, its about money.

 

I 110% agree that any business should have to sell their wares to anyone regardless.  The cake issue is a little more thorny because it wasn't the cake, but what they wanted written on it that was the issue.  On such items I'll stand with the freedom of the market.

 

To seta's point, there is so much legal smashed into state run 'marriage' that there is no way to separate it now without tossing it completely.  Since that won't happen,  I'm generally ok with the ruling as being the most practical path to bring about a desired outcome.  The way does still bother me though and is an opening for appeal.

 

So where do you get your definition for marriage from then? Or why do you feel the meaning can't change?

 

Marriage for the government has always had to do with way more then love. Assets, money, inheritance,...

Love has always been an extra, how else do you explain arranged marriages back in the days between kings and queens of different countries.

Did they get married out of love? I don't think so, it was about land and money. Love was a bonus

[TMYW]

I really don't like the Government telling us what to do. I don't like them involving themselves in church matters.

Isn't there supposed to be a separation of church and state?

 

I don't support gay marriage, I find it to be exactly what the bible says, an abomination. However, with that said, who you marry is none of my business. If you, yourself, are happy, who am I to deny you that? I'm sick of gay marriage and racism in the news. I don't give a flying sh** about it. I'm disgusted that you care more about gay marriage, and racism, than our government screwing us over.

Edit:

I find that those fighting for gay marriage, but bash a Christian for their belief, and refuse service, is a hypocrite. It's simple really. It's absolutely ridiculous that this is considered national news.

 

What is the government telling you to do? How is the government involved in church matters?

 

Yes, there is supposed to be a wall of separation between church and state. Explain how that wall was breached.

 

Who has ever refused service to a Christian for his beliefs? When have Christians been bashed for their beliefs? Do you even know what "bashing" means? Christians HAVE been ridiculed for being bigots. If bigotry is part of the belief system, it's unfortunate for you that your religion holds such repugnant views, because nobody is obliged to accept your bigotry. I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but you don't get a free ride on the account of your religion. Too bad. So sad.

 

If you don't want your beliefs criticized, then don't try foisting those beliefs onto others. Or go shop for a different religion. There are thousands to choose from, and not all of them compel you to say "god hate f**s".

[shockz]

Nothing I said has anything at all to do with the Bible or religion.  They are spoken from a secular perspective.  I'm curious as to your thoughts on my last question.  Particularly to poster below me that has, "...never been happier that we can file our taxes together now and that I can add her to my health insurance."  Its not about love, its about money.

I don't need the government to approve of who I love and spend my life with. I've been doing that without their approval for a long time. But just as any married couple, we deserve the same rights such as taxes and health insurance. It's not about money, it's about being afforded the same benefits as every other married couple. If my husband is on his death bed, I no longer have to worry about their family objecting to me seeing him, as we would be legally a married couple. See bridegroom. It's things like that, what we fought for, and won.

[Emn1ty]

How is that an ad hominem? I used the word "unless". I'm giving the reason for accepting that words are defined by usage and convention as they always have been throughout history. If he wants to be viewed as a pouting, petulant child for not getting what he wants, then he's free to keep arguing that a word doesn't mean what convention dictates.

 

 

And, yes, he SHOULD change his definition, unless he enjoys looking like pouting, petulant child.

 

Well, since he doesn't conform to your requirement, and based on what you've said in here based on the context of the sentence. You are saying he is currently a "pouting, petulant child". That my friend, is an ad hominem attack. Not to mention you're threatening him by saying, "conform or be thus branded as [ad hominem]". An ultimatum isn't an argument. In fact, it's a fallacy. Just like your ad hominem.

[Dashel]

Exactly, that's why I've said this isn't about love, but about privilege, to those that simplify it so in support of this.  'Why can't two people that love each other get (gay) married?"

 

Cause its bigger than 'two' people and 'one' gender.

 

Just an FYI, the courts have called marriage a right, in a number of cases going all the way back to the 1800s. This is hardly the first time.

Source?  In what context? 

[ATLien_0]

I really don't like the Government telling us what to do. I don't like them involving themselves in church matters.

Isn't there supposed to be a separation of church and state?

 

I don't support gay marriage, I find it to be exactly what the bible says, an abomination. However, with that said, who you marry is none of my business. If you, yourself, are happy, who am I to deny you that? I'm sick of gay marriage and racism in the news. I don't give a flying sh** about it. I'm disgusted that you care more about gay marriage, and racism, than our government screwing us over.

Edit:

I find that those fighting for gay marriage, but bash a Christian for their belief, and refuse service, is a hypocrite. It's simple really. It's absolutely ridiculous that this is considered national news.

 

I think you have it backwards. As someone who is not a Christian, I don't like when Christians try to inject their into beliefs government. Thats where the separation is supposed to come from. Christian politicians can say all they want about their religion being attacked, but in my opinion its partly their fault. You can only force your beliefs onto others so much before those others that don't want it fight back. I am happy to acknowledge others beliefs and love learning about others religions. This country was founded on equality for all not equality for all if you abide by the bible 

[shockz]

Exactly, that's why I've said this isn't about love, but about privilege, to those that simplify it so in support of this.

 

Privilege... to marry the one we love. You're splitting hairs.

[Dashel]

I don't need the government to approve of who I love and spend my life with. I've been doing that without their approval for a long time. But just as any married couple, we deserve the same rights such as taxes and health insurance. It's not about money, it's about being afforded the same benefits as every other married couple. If my husband is on his death bed, I no longer have to worry about their family objecting to me seeing him, as we would be legally a married couple. See bridegroom. It's things like that, what we fought for, and won.

I'm really not.  I quite understand and am sympathetic to your position, particularly on the latter.  My primary secular concern is still why you should get a tax breaks, Social Security, and other financial privileges of marriage that we provide primarily for the potential creation of new families. 

 

What if we instead make marriage 'perks' only given to those with children?  Is that discrimination too?  (Just playing devil's advocate)

[DConnell Member]

I think you have it backwards. As someone who is not a Christian, I don't like when Christians try to inject their into beliefs government. Thats where the separation is supposed to come from. Christian politicians can say all they want about their religion being attacked, but in my opinion its partly their fault. You can only force your beliefs onto others so much before those others that don't want it fight back. I am happy to acknowledge others beliefs and love learning about others religions. This country was founded on equality for all not equality for all if you abide by the bible 

 

I agree, but the seperation works both ways - we're supposed to be free to follow whatever religion we choose, so long as it doesn't step on others' toes.

 

The problem with the counterattacks is the bystanders get affected - Christians who do in fact take the "judge not" POV, but get nailed because of the actions of the militant ones. We're not trying to impose our beliefs on others. The most we do is try to make our POV heard.

I quite understand and am sympathetic to your position, particularly on the latter.  My primary secular concern is still why you should get a tax breaks, Social Security, and other financial privileges of marriage that we provide primarily for the potential creation of new families. 

 

What if we instead make marriage 'perks' only given to those with children?  Is that discrimination too?  (Just playing devil's advocate)

 

Why should those "perks" be reserved for those in a sexual relationship (isn't getting laid regularly enough of a perk already?) Let them be for any partnership between individuals.

[tompkin]

Uhm, no. That would be illegal.

That's not true. The military can be used. it was used in the Watts riots in California when the national guard could not handle the situation. 

[shockz]

I'm really not.  I quite understand and am sympathetic to your position, particularly on the latter.  My primary secular concern is still why you should get a tax breaks, Social Security, and other financial privileges of marriage that we provide primarily for the potential creation of new families. 

 

What if we instead make marriage 'perks' only given to those with children?  Is that discrimination too?  (Just playing devil's advocate)

So, what do you calls gays who adopt? Are they not creating families? What about straight married couples who don't want kids, or can't have kids? Should they not get those tax breaks either? What about a couple who is lesbian and one (or both) inseminates herself?

[Dashel]

What marriage isn't a (low) sexual relationship?

 

Adoption would qualify.  I noted potential for a reason.  In my thought experiment, no.  (I'm betting the amount of straight marriages** in this willful position is lower than for gay ones).  Why marry if you don't plan on reproducing?

 

** (see, language is broken now, we have to now qualify it)

[TPreston]

I agree, but the seperation works both ways - we're supposed to be free to follow whatever religion we choose, so long as it doesn't step on others' toes.

Nothing about this ruling stops you from doing that.

I'm really not. I quite understand and am sympathetic to your position, particularly on the latter. My primary secular concern is still why you should get a tax breaks, Social Security, and other financial privileges of marriage that we provide primarily for the potential creation of new families.

What if we instead make marriage 'perks' only given to those with children? Is that discrimination too? (Just playing devil's advocate)

It would at least be consistent