Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    6:12 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Baker forced to make gay wedding cakes, undergo sensitivity training, after losing lawsuit Back to Topics
teacher_tim

Champion Author
Maryland

Posts:19,495
Points:830,410
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Jun 3, 2014 9:36:39 PM

"A family owned bakery has been ordered to make wedding cakes for gay couples and guarantee that its staff be given comprehensive training on Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws after the state’s Civil Rights Commission determined the Christian baker violated the law by refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, in Lakewood, Colorado was directed to change his store policies immediately and force his staff to attend the training sessions. For the next two years, Phillips will also be required to submit quarterly reports to the commission to confirm that he has not turned away customers based on their sexual orientation.
*******************************
Nicolle Martin, an attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom, called the ruling Orwellian and said they are considering an appeal.

“They are turning people of faith into religious refugees,” Martin told me. “Is this the society that we want to live in – where people of faith are driven out of business?”

Martin said it was “truly frightening” that Phillips will be forced to submit quarterly reports to the government disclosing whether he turned away any wedding cake business.
“There will be some reporting requirements so that Jack can demonstrate that he doesn’t exercise his belief system anymore – that he has divested himself of his beliefs,” she said.
He will also be required to create new policies and procedures for his staff.

“We consider this reporting to be aimed at rehabilitating Jack so that he has the right thoughts,” Martin said. “That’s offensive to everything America stands for.”

Phillips, who is celebrating his 40th year in business this week, told me he’s not going to create any new policies.

“My old ones are pretty adequate as far as I’m concerned,” he said. “I don’t plan on giving up my faith and changing because of that.”
link to source
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,218
Points:2,533,930
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 31, 2014 5:23:38 PM

rjhenn: "Except that you neither addressed nor refuted his points. All you did was deny them, without any arguments behind the denials."

Projecting again, I see.

"Heterosexuals have this "right to sexual lifestyle" that you insist that homosexuals shouldn't have. "

If that really were true, polygamy, among many other variants of marriage, would be legal.

weaselspit: "t isn't favored status, btw, but the same status the rest of us enjoy and more or less take for granted...But I wouldn't expect a bigot to be capable of seeing that perspective."

GTH: "weaselspit, if you were really interested in something other than namecalling, you would see that I addressed and refuted your points in my last post."

weaselspit: "It isn't name-calling; it is defining your position based on your posts... It isn't an insult, it is just a fact. I certainly don't use it with any malice intended."

Sorry, but the term "bigot" goes well beyond describing a position. It implies an unsavory motivation and impugns character ("malice intended" or not). That is, it is a form of personal attack. It is also a means of desparaging an argument.

I supposed it provides a momentary feeling of smug self-righteousness, and it avoids the effort of actually understanding your opponent's argument so as to intelligently respond. But it's really a lazy approach that says more about the person using that term, than its intended target.

sgm4law: "It's interesting to me that people don't see how preventing other people from conduct which does not affect the first group of people in any way is imposing their beliefs on those other people."

No conduct is being prevented by upholding the definition of marriage. Any same-sex couple is free, not only to enter into a same-sex union, but to privately designate their union a "marriage".

What is being demanded is precisely an imposition on others -- to demand recognition of their "marriage" that others, may not wish to give -- such as our cake baker.

GTH
Profile Pic
El_Gato_Negro
Champion Author Miami

Posts:3,841
Points:779,450
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Oct 31, 2014 4:13:08 PM

"Funny, the same arguments were used to condone Jim Crow and opposition to mixed-race marriages."

<<Which we already established is irrelevant, because race is innate, and the choice of sexual lifestyle is not.>> gas_too_high

That has not been established. It has only been claimed by you with no support beyond a 45 year old report in an old absolete book of psychiatry.

Can you not become one with the modern world?
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,149
Points:2,990,420
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Oct 31, 2014 3:50:51 PM

It's interesting to me that people don't see how preventing other people from conduct which does not affect the first group of people in any way is imposing their beliefs on those other people.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,638
Points:545,705
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 31, 2014 3:40:02 PM

"weaselspit, if you were really interested in something other than namecalling, you would see that I addressed and refuted your points in my last post."

It isn't name-calling; it is defining your position based on your posts... It isn't an insult, it is just a fact. I certainly don't use it with any malice intended.

"You too, want to create a "right to sexual lifestyle' out of whole cloth and slander anyone who disagrees with you."

You have yet to explain how SSC's enjoying the same rights HSC's enjoy is creating something 'special', yet you feel free to minimize those whose 'lifestyle' you disagree with. You cannot force your beliefs onto them yet decry that it is your 'beliefs' and 'rights' that are being trampled...

SMH
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,445
Points:2,808,820
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 31, 2014 1:28:15 PM

gas_too_high - "weaselspit, if you were really interested in something other than namecalling, you would see that I addressed and refuted your points in my last post."

Except that you neither addressed nor refuted his points. All you did was deny them, without any arguments behind the denials.

"You too, want to create a "right to sexual lifestyle' out of whole cloth and slander anyone who disagrees with you."

Heterosexuals have this "right to sexual lifestyle" that you insist that homosexuals shouldn't have.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,445
Points:2,808,820
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 31, 2014 1:23:03 PM

gas_too_high - "Sorry, but you're trying to have it both ways. You are trying to favor SSA as a basis for rights and behavior, because you eivdently approve of it, but deny that same consideration for conditions at least as deeply embedded and hard to resist as SSA, because you deem them 'harmful.'"

Again, you've got it backwards. You're trying to 'favor' SSA as a basis for discrimination, trying to justify that discrimination because demonstrably harmful conditions like alcoholism and substance addiction are an allowable basis for discrimination.

"If a "harmful" behavior is tossed away, then you admit that there is no obligation to respect behavior arising from a deeply seated psychological condition. That applies to substance abuse. that also applies to same-sex attraction. Your standard of "harm" is just a red herring for favoring one such condition over others."

No, harm to others is the basis of much of our law. If you deny that, then what's your reason for laws against murder, theft and rape? According to your logic, there's no reason to deny a serial killer the pleasure he gets from killing others.

"And, at the very least, the fact that the "parts don't fit" is reason enough not to grant SSA favored status as a basis of identity or rights."

Again with the "parts don't fit" rationalization. Why should humans be limited by the random effects of evolution?

And who's asking for "favored status"? All homosexuals want is an end to discrimination and the same status as other committed monogamous relationships.

"That and the non-procreative aspect of the homosexual lifestyle, which renders it of private significance only, not public significance like marriage."

Again, you're attempting to reduce marriage to being simply about procreation, ignoring the many other, more significant ways that marriage, and SSM, also benefit society. Things like stable relationships and raising children.

And, of course, your continued support for marriages that can't or won't procreate, just because they superficially look like they could procreate, if they wanted to, undermines your position. Obviously, even you believe that there's more to marriage than just procreation. If not, and if your kids, if any, are out of the house, why are you still married (if you are)?

"Which they already have. Anyone regardless of sexual orientation can make the same choices regarding marriage or same-=sex unions as anyone else. The only different is due to free choice -- nothing more."

However, the consequences are different, same-sex unions being treated as second- or third-class families, despite providing the same benefits to society. Which difference is due strictly to bigotry against homosexuality.

And why should heterosexuals be allowed "free choice" in who they marry, while that's denied to homosexuals?

"But many with SSA have been deceived into believing that they "have to " live the homosexual lifestyle."

And many with SSA have been deceived into believing that they "have to" live the heterosexual lifestyle. Like Larry Craig (R, ID), Pastor Ted Haggard, or Bruce Barclay.

"Which we already established is irrelevant, because race is innate, and the choice of sexual lifestyle is not."

But SSA is innate, and, again, why should that choice be discriminated against?
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,218
Points:2,533,930
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 31, 2014 1:13:06 PM

weaselspit, if you were really interested in something other than namecalling, you would see that I addressed and refuted your points in my last post.

You too, want to create a "right to sexual lifestyle' out of whole cloth and slander anyone who disagrees with you.

GTH
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,638
Points:545,705
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 31, 2014 9:03:18 AM

"And, at the very least, the fact that the "parts don't fit" is reason enough not to grant SSA favored status as a basis of identity or rights."

Then the 'color doesn't match' should also be a reason not to grant interracial couples "favored status".

It isn't favored status, btw, but the same status the rest of us enjoy and more or less take for granted...

But I wouldn't expect a bigot to be capable of seeing that perspective.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,218
Points:2,533,930
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 31, 2014 12:11:21 AM

lvskyguy - "They want the heterosexuals (in fact, the want EVERYONE) to accept (condone) their sexuality and beliefs and flaunt their lifestyle,"

rjhenn: "No, they just want the same rights the rest of us have."

Which they already have. Anyone regardless of sexual orientation can make the same choices regarding marriage or same-=sex unions as anyone else. The only different is due to free choice -- nothing more.

But many with SSA have been deceived into believing that they "have to " live the homosexual lifestyle.

"Funny, the same arguments were used to condone Jim Crow and opposition to mixed-race marriages."

Which we already established is irrelevant, because race is innate, and the choice of sexual lifestyle is not.

sgm4law: "Canada may have stronger human rights and dignity protections than we do."

Sadly, our norther neighbor has chosen to elevate the "right of sexual lifestyle" over freedom of religion, and harassed religious ministers merely for relating what the3 Bible teaches about homosexuality.

And Canada seems to be reducing freedom of religion to merely "freedom of worship," like the old USSR.

GTH

[Edited by: gas_too_high at 10/31/2014 12:11:56 AM EST]
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,218
Points:2,533,930
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 31, 2014 12:10:45 AM

rjhenn: "...which behavior is the natural consequence of who and what they are."

GTH: "Which also applies to alcoholics and substance addicts."

rjhenn: "Which behavior is demonstrably harmful to themselves and those around them, thus there is an actual reason to control it."

GTH: "Even if that violates "who and what they are"? For homosexuals, you hold that virtually as sacred, overriding the rights of others. But for others, you toss it away without a care."

rjhenn: "Strawman. You've got no valid reason for discriminating against homosexuals, yet you insist that they should be second-class citizens. You want the rights of others to override the rights of homosexuals."

Sorry, but you're trying to have it both ways. You are trying to favor SSA as a basis for rights and behavior, because you eivdently approve of it, but deny that same consideration for conditions at least as deeply embedded and hard to resist as SSA, because you deem them "harmful."

If a "harmful" behavior is tossed away, then you admit that there is no obligation to respect behavior arising from a deeply seated psychological condition. That applies to substance abuse. that also applies to same-sex attraction. Your standard of "harm" is just a red herring for favoring one such condition over others.

And, at the very least, the fact that the "parts don't fit" is reason enough not to grant SSA favored status as a basis of identity or rights.

That and the non-procreative aspect of the homosexual lifestyle, which renders it of private significance only, not public significance like marriage.

GTH
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,187
Points:758,525
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Oct 30, 2014 1:36:28 PM

GTH (as quoted by rjhenn) "No harm, that is, that you are willing to admit. There is HIV/AIDS, to which anyone who performs anal sex, including practicing homosexuals, is particularly susceptible."

rjhenn "But that, as you just agreed, is not limited to homosexuals, and certainly doesn't apply to lesbians."

GTH seems to have some sort of sick, morbid fascination with anal sex. (Does he secretly want to do it?) Where does he get the idea that all homosexuals engage in anal sex?

As you just pointed out, lesbians don't have anal sex (well, there is such a thing as a strap-on dildo though). And just as male heterosexuals don't always have vaginal sex, by the same token male heterosexuals may not always have anal sex either. There is such a thing as oral sex (although perhaps that's a foreign concept to him too?)

GTH "Then there is the higher suicide rate, in one of the most gay-friendly countries in the world."

Really? He thinks a country where people discriminate against homosexuals as he does is "gay-friendly"? What about the news articles about gays being beaten and killed? The stories about gays being 'outed' against their will by college roommates and committing suicide as a result? The fact that gays feel they have to be 'in-the-closet' in the first place?

How about that gays can be banned from visiting their partners in the hospital, even when they're terminally ill? Or that gays can't put their partners down for company health insurance as heterosexuals can? Or that they can't sponsor their spouse when immigrating? Or that they can't claim married benefits on their IRS filing? Or the other thousands of ways that gays are discriminated against officially?

If those are the attributes of what he thinks makes up a "gay-friendly" country, I wonder what he considers "unfriendly" to be?

GTH "The APA thought that homosexual behavior was an aberration, before they bowed to political pressure in 1973."

Yes, to him, there has been no progress made since 1973. Researchers and psychologists have learned nothing since then.

But of course, he believes in 4,000 year old mythology designed to keep the masses in check too.

GTH "Speaking of anal sex:"

rjhenn "Obsessed, are you? But, apparently, only with male homosexuals. Do you feel threatened? Or does the idea actually excite you at some level?"

You're right. It must either excite him or threaten him on some level. He thinks that's all homosexuals do (even the female ones?). And he seems to dismiss that many heterosexuals do it too.

GTH "But of course, a man and a woman can always do coitus. A same-sex couple cannot."

I can guarantee GTH that Stephen Hawking can't do coitus.

Yet he has no problem with Hawking's marriage.

Just more examples of GTH's double standards.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,638
Points:545,705
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 30, 2014 1:24:41 PM

" but THEY also have to accept the fact that OTHERS cannot accept, tolerate or condone their lifestyle."

Actually no, they don't have to, nor should they. That is the problem. Intolerance, be it racial, sexual, religious, political etc in nature is wrong. Period.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,445
Points:2,808,820
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 30, 2014 12:55:07 PM

lvskyguy - "They want the heterosexuals (in fact, the want EVERYONE) to accept (condone) their sexuality and beliefs and flaunt their lifestyle,"

No, they just want the same rights the rest of us have.

"but THEY also have to accept the fact that OTHERS cannot accept, tolerate or condone their lifestyle. And sadly, these laws require and force a business to accept and condone what the owner does not feel morally right. That should be his/her choice based on his/her religious belief."

Funny, the same arguments were used to condone Jim Crow and opposition to mixed-race marriages.
Profile Pic
lvskyguy
Champion Author Las Vegas

Posts:7,255
Points:1,028,135
Joined:Mar 2012
Message Posted: Oct 30, 2014 12:40:14 PM

They want the heterosexuals (in fact, the want EVERYONE) to accept (condone) their sexuality and beliefs and flaunt their lifestyle, but THEY also have to accept the fact that OTHERS cannot accept, tolerate or condone their lifestyle. And sadly, these laws require and force a business to accept and condone what the owner does not feel morally right. That should be his/her choice based on his/her religious belief.

As an example, as poor as this analogy is, you may choose vulgar descriptive language when among your friends, but in the work place you would not use such continued profanity because you SHOULD KNOW that others find your language offensive.



[Edited by: lvskyguy at 10/30/2014 12:41:37 PM EST]
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,149
Points:2,990,420
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Oct 30, 2014 12:37:37 PM

<<rumbleseat - "When in a church, but in this case the ptimary wedding venue is a commercial venue. A minister on site does not make it a religious venue, it is still marriage performed for profit in a commercial venue.">>

Sorry, the act that they are in business to do is religious wedding ceremonies, and in the U.S., our First Amendment protects religious expression. Even though they are still taking money for what they do, it is not a civil ceremony in that place.

Canada may have stronger human rights and dignity protections than we do.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,445
Points:2,808,820
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 30, 2014 12:30:32 PM

rumbleseat - "When in a church, but in this case the ptimary wedding venue is a commercial venue. A minister on site does not make it a religious venue, it is still marriage performed for profit in a commercial venue."

Yeah, that's my take on it as well.

If they want to be exempt from the regulation, they should be required to turn their commercial wedding chapel into a place of worship.

[Edited by: rjhenn at 10/30/2014 12:31:25 PM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,445
Points:2,808,820
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 30, 2014 12:29:02 PM

gas_too_high - "Other than the reasons I have given, many, many times before. Those reasons (left as an exercise for those paying attention) don't go away just because you dismiss them."

No, they go away because they've been thoroughly refuted and demonstrated to be baseless, thus irrational.

"Which also applies to alcoholics and substance addicts."

Which behavior is demonstrably harmful to themselves and those around them, thus there is an actual reason to control it.

"Even if that violates "who and what they are"? For homosexuals, you hold that virtually as sacred, overriding the rights of others. But for others, you toss it away without a care."

Strawman. You've got no valid reason for discriminating against homosexuals, yet you insist that they should be second-class citizens. You want the rights of others to override the rights of homosexuals.

"No harm, that is, that you are willing to admit. There is HIV/AIDS, to which anyone who performs anal sex, including practicing homosexuals, is particularly susceptible."

But that, as you just agreed, is not limited to homosexuals, and certainly doesn't apply to lesbians.

"Then there is the higher suicide rate, in one of the most gay-friendly countries in the world."

And still with high levels of anti-gay bias.

"The APA thought that homosexual behavior was an aberration, before they bowed to political pressure in 1973."

You mean they acknowledged the lack of any science behind their previous position.

"Speaking of anal sex:"

Obsessed, are you? But, apparently, only with male homosexuals. Do you feel threatened? Or does the idea actually excite you at some level?

"The rest is irrelevant nonsense, because you never asked me, and I never said before now that I approve an opposite sex couple having anal sex. I don't, not particularly."

Yet you approve of marriages that don't have, can't have or never intend to have children.

"But of course, a man and a woman can always do coitus. A same-sex couple cannot."

Yet you approve of marriages that don't have, can't have or never intend to have children.

While denying that same-sex families with children have any validity. Obviously the children don't actually matter to you.

"You know what happens when you assume. And it just happened to you."

Funny, all of your arguments are based on false assumptions.

"That doesn't necessarily mean that use is morally wrong. But neither can it plausibly be used to equate same=sex unions as equal to marriage. That is especially when that equating overrides the rights of others, whether the rights of children to a father and mother, or the right of religious believers not to be forced to violate their religious beliefs."

Like those false assumptions. Same-sex committed monogamous unions provide the same benefits to society that heterosexual marriages do. So how do you justify treating them as inferior? You make stuff up.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,638
Points:545,705
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 30, 2014 12:10:47 PM

"Court filings show the Hitching Post reorganized earlier this month as a “religious corporation.”"

Which I have no problem with. They might want to help make it clear, as far as their 'corporation' goes, that they are organized as such so as to avoid future discrimination claims.

Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,149
Points:2,990,420
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Oct 30, 2014 11:35:18 AM

At least the city of Coeur d'Alene has seen the light.

On the other hand, if someone is employed by the government to perform civil ceremonies, their refusal to perform a ceremony for a single-sex couple should be cause for dismissal.
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,638
Points:545,705
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 30, 2014 11:13:37 AM

"And marriages aren't inherently religious ceremonies any more either. There are thousands of secular marriages performed by judges, JPs and others 'ordained' to perform wedding but not to represent any religion.

In fact, a preacher cannot, by law, perform a legally valid marriage without a government license to do so. Any marriage performed without that license isn't valid in the eyes of the law regardless of the preacher's standing in whatever church they belong to.

Therefore, no religion, including any Christian religions, 'owns' the word 'marriage'. It is not a sacred word and religions, including Christians, have no legal leg to stand on to declare that SSM can't exist."

Exactly.
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,339
Points:3,832,590
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Oct 30, 2014 10:45:42 AM

"No one should be forced to perform a religious ceremony they don't agree with, ordained or not."

When in a church, but in this case the ptimary wedding venue is a commercial venue. A minister on site does not make it a religious venue, it is still marriage performed for profit in a commercial venue.

[Edited by: rumbleseat at 10/30/2014 10:47:25 AM EST]
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,187
Points:758,525
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Oct 30, 2014 10:24:43 AM

And marriages aren't inherently religious ceremonies any more either. There are thousands of secular marriages performed by judges, JPs and others 'ordained' to perform wedding but not to represent any religion.

In fact, a preacher cannot, by law, perform a legally valid marriage without a government license to do so. Any marriage performed without that license isn't valid in the eyes of the law regardless of the preacher's standing in whatever church they belong to.

Therefore, no religion, including any Christian religions, 'owns' the word 'marriage'. It is not a sacred word and religions, including Christians, have no legal leg to stand on to declare that SSM can't exist.
Profile Pic
IammeCA
Veteran Author Ventura

Posts:494
Points:180,090
Joined:Sep 2009
Message Posted: Oct 30, 2014 10:24:30 AM

"The difference between running a hotel and performing a marriage ceremony is that renting a hotel room is not an inherently religious act or an act that could be considered speech."

I think I was a bit unclear in my earlier post. I was responding to a post that implied they should be exempt because they were ordained. I was trying to say that since it was not a religious institution being ordained or not has no bearing on the argument.

I agree with you. No one should be forced to perform a religious ceremony they don't agree with, ordained or not.
Profile Pic
rumbleseat
Champion Author Winnipeg

Posts:25,339
Points:3,832,590
Joined:Oct 2002
Message Posted: Oct 30, 2014 10:11:01 AM

"The difference between running a hotel and performing a marriage ceremony is that renting a hotel room is not an inherently religious act"

Those mattiages were not re;igious ceremonies in a church, they were commercial transactions in a commercial [rented] venue.
Profile Pic
BabeTruth
Champion Author New York

Posts:5,187
Points:758,525
Joined:Dec 2012
Message Posted: Oct 30, 2014 9:56:50 AM

"The only version of the term it "owns" are the marriages conducted within the church."

The problem is, and one of the reasons that I think is driving more and more people away from Christianity, is that they think they "own" everything, or at least anything they say they own.

They want to have the government make laws for everybody that reflect "Christian values" when in fact between different churches they can't even agree themselves on what those values are. They don't recognize that other religions have other values, or they just dismiss those other religions as being of no account.

Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,638
Points:545,705
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 30, 2014 8:28:28 AM

"The only version of the term it "owns" are the marriages conducted within the church."

Exactly. It would be nice if they would recognize that fact...
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,638
Points:545,705
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 30, 2014 8:27:20 AM

"Since people of all religions, and people of no religion, get married, who says Christians own it?"

Those who say SSM redefines 'marriage'... Don't see too many non-Christians posting as such (I am sure you can find some anecdotal evidence, but in US politics, it seems Christian Conservatives are the biggest offenders for thinking they own the term 'marriage', and thusly the 'only' definition that is correct - in the strictest sense of the religion.
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,149
Points:2,990,420
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Oct 30, 2014 7:19:32 AM

"The ordinance applies to to everyone who runs a business providing public accommodations regardless of their clerical status. If an ordained minister ran a hotel does that mean he can refuse rooms to gays because he is ordained? I knew a couple guys who got ordained to avoid the draft back in the late 60's."

The difference between running a hotel and performing a marriage ceremony is that renting a hotel room is not an inherently religious act or an act that could be considered speech. Forcing the Idaho ministers to perform a marriage that goes against their religion is a direct conflict with their First Amendment rights. I think the ministers' case is a different one from the bakers. Even though it is for-profit, the nature of the business is quite different.
Profile Pic
streetrider
Champion Author Gary

Posts:10,394
Points:150,875
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Oct 30, 2014 7:13:12 AM

Who really cares about this but a few politicians.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,218
Points:2,533,930
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 29, 2014 10:10:05 PM

weaselspit: "So why does Christianity get to own the word marriage?"

Since people of all religions, and people of no religion, get married, who says Christians own it?

That's not even a good strawman. rjhenn has come up with better, many times.

GTH
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,218
Points:2,533,930
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 29, 2014 10:09:00 PM

GTH: "In any case, how do you come to the conclusion that SSA, which influences people to use their gentalia in ways that "don't fit" and in ways that frustrate their biological function, is innate?"

sgm4law: "It's not what they do with their genitalia that is innate. It is the type of person one is attracted to."

Even if SSA is fixed at birth (for which there is no clear evidence), it is not truly "innate" unless it is a natural variation and not simply a defect. All kinds of characteristics fixed at birth, are clear defects. If they frustrate some bodily function, tat's a good sing of a defect. Spina bifida and congenital blindness are 2 obvious examples.

"Without getting graphic, there are many, many activities that humans engage in with one another that are sexual in nature, but which do not require the lock and key interaction of heterosexual intercourse that you seem so fixated on."

Sexual reproduction is the only biological function that can only be completed by 2 humand -- a man and a woman -- using their sexual organs in that "lock and key interaction."

So any psychological tendency to use those organs in a different fashion, including SSA, can be reasonably believed to be something other than innate.

That doesn't necessarily mean that use is morally wrong. But neither can it plausibly be used to equate same=sex unions as equal to marriage. That is especially when that equating overrides the rights of others, whether the rights of children to a father and mother, or the right of religious believers not to be forced to violate their religious beliefs.

GTH

[Edited by: gas_too_high at 10/29/2014 10:09:15 PM EST]
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,218
Points:2,533,930
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 29, 2014 9:48:07 PM

GTH: "But "who and what they are" does not compel behavior. Nor does it change consequences of that behavior, nor grant rights relative to that behavior. If you disagree, then why aren't you campaigning to allow smoking indoors, or protecting alcoholics from discrimination? ("Harm" is not an excuse. Harm is a consequence)."

rjhenn: "And you still have no rational reason for opposing that behavior,..."

Other than the reasons I have given, many, many times before. Those reasons (left as an exercise for those paying attention) don't go away just because you dismiss them.

"...which behavior is the natural consequence of who and what they are."

Which also applies to alcoholics and substance addicts.

"And harm is a reason for controlling a particular behavior, not an excuse."

Even if that violates "who and what they are"? For homosexuals, you hold that virtually as sacred, overriding the rights of others. But for others, you toss it away without a care.

"There is no harm that is a direct consequence of being in a homosexual committed monogamous relationship, other than the possibility that some nutball might object violently to your 'behavior'."

No harm, that is, that you are willing to admit. There is HIV/AIDS, to which anyone who performs anal sex, including practicing homosexuals, is particularly susceptible.

Then there is the higher suicide rate, in one of the most gay-friendly countries in the world.

The APA thought that homosexual behavior was an aberration, before they bowed to political pressure in 1973.

Speaking of anal sex:

"Funny, it isn't only homosexuals who "use their genitalia in ways that 'don't fit'". And the only reason you're opposed to that, but, strangely, only for gays..."

The rest is irrelevant nonsense, because you never asked me, and I never said before now that I approve an opposite sex couple having anal sex. I don't, not particularly.

But of course, a man and a woman can always do coitus. A same-sex couple cannot.

You know what happens when you assume. And it just happened to you.

GTH

[Edited by: gas_too_high at 10/29/2014 9:52:00 PM EST]
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,149
Points:2,990,420
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Oct 29, 2014 3:40:23 PM

"So why does Christianity get to own the word marriage?"

The only version of the term it "owns" are the marriages conducted within the church. Marriage is otherwise a secular arrangement, and can be separated from the sacrament that it is in Christian churches.

Otherwise, people who were not Christian would not have marriages that were legally recognizable. And we wouldn't want that, would we?
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,638
Points:545,705
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 29, 2014 1:23:56 PM

"Why are you so attached to the word "marriage"?"

In the auto industry, when you put a car together you 'marry' the body and chassis together at some point during the process.

Auto Marriage

You never hear anybody complaining about this use of the term 'marriage', which is clearly not between a man and a woman.

So why does Christianity get to own the word marriage?
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,638
Points:545,705
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 29, 2014 1:18:09 PM

"Next week vote out corrupt judges!"

Why do you label them as corrupt? Because your opinion differs from theirs?
Profile Pic
Tru2psu2
Champion Author Winston-Salem

Posts:17,695
Points:2,125,510
Joined:Feb 2004
Message Posted: Oct 29, 2014 5:35:51 AM

Next week vote out corrupt judges!

Look how the vote on right to life issues...that usually (90% of the time) dictates how they vote on other rights issues per David Barton.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,445
Points:2,808,820
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 29, 2014 1:32:41 AM

EZExit - "--A non-answer."

No, an accurate answer.

"--Stop changing the argument I made, I am talking gay marriage and you are talking homosexuality, thus the probability for you to not comprehend some of my thoughts."

So gay marriage isn't about homosexuality?

And your opposition to gay marriage has nothing to do with your dislike of (or, more likely, fear of) homosexual sex?

"--Calling gay marriage a committed monogamous relationship is one way to avoid redefining marriage. I object to redefining marriage as much as I would object to redefining people to be any mammal."

Why are you so attached to the word "marriage"?

"--I thought you said it was so they could have their unions legally recognized. But your Freudian slip is actually the truth, it is solely to put people that find marriage sacred in their place."

So you're opposed to any secular marriages? Vegas marriages? Or any marriages by religions that you don't approve of?

And all homosexual committed monogamous unions need is legal recognition as marriages, not protection. That's your strawman.

"--In both cases the business owner is being compelled to act against their religious convictions. The basis of the Hobby Lobby judgement was that a person does not give up their freedom of religion once they form a company."

No, it was that laws are required to be the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest. The only restriction being placed on the baker in this case is to treat all of his customers the same.

"--Bingo! You finally concede that we are now hand picking protected behaviors, so far the only one protected is gay marriage, to the detriment of the other gazillion possible human behaviors that don't enjoy special protection."

No, you've got it reversed again. We are discriminating against behaviors that are actually harmful. SSM benefits society, so there's no reason to discriminate against it.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,445
Points:2,808,820
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 29, 2014 1:23:04 AM

gas_too_high - "Man, are you ever projecting, big time. That statement, word for word, is one I could easily apply to you."

You have applied it to me, because you're the one projecting. None of your arguments make the slightest bit of sense to anyone who hasn't already dedicated themselves to your position.

"But "who and what they are" does not compel behavior. Nor does it change consequences of that behavior, nor grant rights relative to that behavior. If you disagree, then why aren't you campaigning to allow smoking indoors, or protecting alcoholics from discrimination? ("Harm" is not an excuse. Harm is a consequence)."

And you still have no rational reason for opposing that behavior, which behavior is the natural consequence of who and what they are. Given both of those, your entire position is exposed as irrational hatred.

And harm is a reason for controlling a particular behavior, not an excuse. There is no harm that is a direct consequence of being in a homosexual committed monogamous relationship, other than the possibility that some nutball might object violently to your 'behavior'.

"Forgive me if I seem to belabor the point, but others (like rjhenn) emphasize the behavior."

No, you emphasize what you keep calling the 'lifestyle', as if calling it that made it something to be avoided.

"In any case, how do you come to the conclusion that SSA, which influences people to use their gentalia in ways that "don't fit" and in ways that frustrate their biological function, is innate?"

Funny, it isn't only homosexuals who "use their gentalia in ways that 'don't fit'". And the only reason you're opposed to that, but, strangely, only for gays, is that thousands of years ago human society needed every warm body it could create, just to survive, thus made it a "sin" to do anything that reduced the birth rate.

"And if so, how do you avoid drawing that conclusion for things like alcoholism, which some have believed to be genetic?"

Alcoholism is "innate". It's also harmful both to the alcoholic and to those around him.
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:16,081
Points:2,321,935
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Oct 29, 2014 12:48:11 AM

RJHenn: <<<"IOW, a fallacy.">>>

--A non-answer.

<<<"Not behavior. You want homosexuals to be second-class citizens, subject to being "culled" if they let it be known that they are homosexual. Your only objection to the behavior is because it shows that they are homosexual.">>>

--Stop changing the argument I made, I am talking gay marriage and you are talking homosexuality, thus the probability for you to not comprehend some of my thoughts.

<<<"Yet you want to treat those committed monogamous relationships differently from, and superior to, homosexual committed monogamous relationships. IOW, a "protected class".">>>

--Calling gay marriage a committed monogamous relationship is one way to avoid redefining marriage. I object to redefining marriage as much as I would object to redefining people to be any mammal.

<<<"The only reason homosexual committed monogamous relationships need protection is because of attitudes like yours.">>>

--I thought you said it was so they could have their unions legally recognized. But your Freudian slip is actually the truth, it is solely to put people that find marriage sacred in their place.

EZExit: <<<"This is very similar to the Hobby Lobby ruling about forcing a business owner to participate in abortion medication distribution.">>>

RJHenn: <<<"Not really. One is something the employer was being forced to pay for. The other is something the business is being paid for.">>>

--In both cases the business owner is being compelled to act against their religious convictions. The basis of the Hobby Lobby judgement was that a person does not give up their freedom of religion once they form a company.

<<<"So you're saying he shouldn't have 'participated' in that dog wedding, thus making a mockery of the sacrament of marriage?">>>

--I did say that, but I agree with that statement.

RJHenn replying to GTH: <<<"That's because there are actual practical reasons for discriminating against some behaviors. And none, that anyone's presented so far, for discriminating against SSM.">>>

--Bingo! You finally concede that we are now hand picking protected behaviors, so far the only one protected is gay marriage, to the detriment of the other gazillion possible human behaviors that don't enjoy special protection.

[Edited by: EZExit at 10/29/2014 12:48:48 AM EST]
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,149
Points:2,990,420
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Oct 28, 2014 10:34:16 PM

"In any case, how do you come to the conclusion that SSA, which influences people to use their gentalia in ways that "don't fit" and in ways that frustrate their biological function, is innate?"

It's not what they do with their genitalia that is innate. It is the type of person one is attracted to. Without getting graphic, there are many, many activities that humans engage in with one another that are sexual in nature, but which do not require the lock and key interaction of heterosexual intercourse that you seem so fixated on.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,218
Points:2,533,930
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 28, 2014 10:15:02 PM

GTH: "Which disagreement is the "core" -- that SSA is not innate, or that it's SSA and not the homosexual lifestyle that's the issue? Or both?"

sgm4law: "Obviously, it's that SSA is innate."

Forgive me if I seem to belabor the point, but others (like rjhenn) emphasize the behavior.

In any case, how do you come to the conclusion that SSA, which influences people to use their gentalia in ways that "don't fit" and in ways that frustrate their biological function, is innate?

And if so, how do you avoid drawing that conclusion for things like alcoholism, which some have believed to be genetic?

GTH
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,149
Points:2,990,420
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Oct 28, 2014 9:43:04 PM

"Which disagreement is the "core" -- that SSA is not innate, or that it's SSA and not the homosexual lifestyle that's the issue? Or both?"

Obviously, it's that SSA is innate. From that point, your arguments about behavior/lifestyle are nonsensical.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,218
Points:2,533,930
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 28, 2014 9:21:05 PM

rjhenn: "Sorry, but you don't have any arguments that haven't been thoroughly rebutted many times, going back for years. Yet you still cling to those false arguments."

Man, are you ever projecting, big time. That statement, word for word, is one I could easily apply to you.

GTH: "But you have effectively conceded that the definition of marriage is about behavior, and not who anyone is. So you cannot compare marriage redefinition to race."

rjhenn: "Why not? The behavior is based on who and what they are."

But "who and what they are" does not compel behavior. Nor does it change consequences of that behavior, nor grant rights relative to that behavior. If you disagree, then why aren't you campaigning to allow smoking indoors, or protecting alcoholics from discrimination? ("Harm" is not an excuse. Harm is a consequence).

GTH: 'If by "sexual orientation" you mean same-sex attraction, that is neither an immutable condition (being at least in many cases being a developmental issue, and not provably a genetic one -- the "gay gene" has proven very elusive), nor is it even the issue at all.'

sgm4law: "It is the very core of the disagreement embodied in this thread. You think it's not true, most of us think it is. That is why this argument goes on and on in multiple threads over the course of years. A disagreement on the fundamental issue at stake."

Which disagreement is the "core" -- that SSA is not innate, or that it's SSA and not the homosexual lifestyle that's the issue? Or both?

GTH
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,638
Points:545,705
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 28, 2014 7:38:07 PM

"It is the very core of the disagreement embodied in this thread. You think it's not true, most of us think it is. That is why this argument goes on and on in multiple threads over the course of years. A disagreement on the fundamental issue at stake."

Correct.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,445
Points:2,808,820
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 28, 2014 6:03:16 PM

EZExit - "--It's identical, as they all are based on behavior, and in all cases the merchant with the sign is picking out certain individuals based on their behavior. If one is discrimination, they all are discrimination. (This concept is known as "slippery slope")"

IOW, a fallacy.

"--As I answered Weasel, all people are indeed equal, up until they conduct a behavior that allows them to be culled from the rest. You and others want to allow behavior to become a protected class, here you go. It's time to prosecute any signage that culls people based on behavior. Slippery slope all over again."

Not behavior. You want homosexuals to be second-class citizens, subject to being "culled" if they let it be known that they are homosexual. Your only objection to the behavior is because it shows that they are homosexual.

"--Of course traditional marriage is based on human behavior, getting married is a behavioral choice. However, my argument is that married people are not supposed to be a protected class, traditional or otherwise."

Yet you want to treat those committed monogamous relationships differently from, and superior to, homosexual committed monogamous relationships. IOW, a "protected class".

The only reason homosexual committed monogamous relationships need protection is because of attitudes like yours.

"This is very similar to the Hobby Lobby ruling about forcing a business owner to participate in abortion medication distribution."

Not really. One is something the employer was being forced to pay for. The other is something the business is being paid for.

"A customer that chooses to make a mockery of the sacrament of marriage, a big problem, at least as far as forcing the store owner to participate against their will."

So you're saying he shouldn't have 'participated' in that dog wedding, thus making a mockery of the sacrament of marriage?
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:28,445
Points:2,808,820
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 28, 2014 5:58:00 PM

gas_too_high - "rjhenn, once again you are reduced to content-free retorts because you can't answer my argument and you obstinantly refuse to admit it or even just not respond. So most of your post is gibberish."

Sorry, but you don't have any arguments that haven't been thoroughly rebutted many times, going back for years. Yet you still cling to those false arguments.

"But you have effectively condeded that the definition of marriage is about behavior, and not who anyone is. So you cannot compare marriage redefinition to race."

Why not? The behavior is based on who and what they are. And the behavior is the same as you see in your favored type of committed monogamous relationship, yet you want to accept one type as "marriage" and deny that the other exists, despite the harm that does to families, children and society.

"And they are treated equally, in accordace with their different lifestyle choices, as you have conceded. An artificial distinction would be to gloss over those choices."

Except that your distinction between those two "lifestyle choices" is what's artificial.

"Actually, a quite good comparison. Most behaviors don't receive the kind of absolute protection demanded for the choice of sexual lifestyle."

That's because there are actual practical reasons for discriminating against some behaviors. And none, that anyone's presented so far, for discriminating against SSM.

"But the choice of that lifestyle is considered by some, virtually sacred, as though it were religion. Actually, that choice is even permitted to override the religious belief of others."

No, it's just the reverse. The religious beliefs of others are not permitted to override the "lifestyle choices" of others, when those "lifestyle choices" have no effect on those religious beliefs.

"And not to allow that behavior to exist, but to compel approval by calling it equal to marriage."

Sorry, but the word "marriage" is not sacred. It is a legal and social institution, and, so far, you have been unable to provide any rational reason why it shouldn't be extended to same-sex committed monogamous relationships.

"If by "sexual orientation" you mean same-sex attraction, that is neither an immutable condition (being at least in many cases being a developmental issue, and not provably a genetic one -- the "gay gene" has proven very elusive), nof is it even the issue at all."

And there you go again, insisting that an "immutable condition" must be genetic, or it's not immutable. The fact is, sexual attraction is not an either-or characteristic, but a continuum, and a lot of it appears to stem from brain development in the womb. Which appears to be just as immutable as if it were genetic.

"The issue as EZExit and I have stated, is a chosen behavior, which is far from being immutable. People have been known to be freed from SSA, or to have adjusted to it and still pursue either a celibate lifestyle or to marry (the opposite gender) and have children."

Yes, we see people in weak marriages due to such all the time, as demonstrated by your favorite study. You still haven't presented any reason, other than your own religious beliefs, why anyone should want to be "freed from SSA", any more than they should want to be freed from heterosexual attraction. Your entire presumption is that SSA is wrong, even though you can't, or won't, say why.

"The problem now is that some want to replace the choice of religion, with the choice of a sexual lifestyle."

Hardly. At most, they simply want religion to stop imposing on others who don't follow that religion.
Profile Pic
sgm4law
Champion Author Maryland

Posts:23,149
Points:2,990,420
Joined:Mar 2006
Message Posted: Oct 28, 2014 3:38:42 PM

<<If by "sexual orientation" you mean same-sex attraction, that is neither an immutable condition (being at least in many cases being a developmental issue, and not provably a genetic one -- the "gay gene" has proven very elusive), nof is it even the issue at all.>>

It is the very core of the disagreement embodied in this thread. You think it's not true, most of us think it is. That is why this argument goes on and on in multiple threads over the course of years. A disagreement on the fundamental issue at stake.
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:16,081
Points:2,321,935
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Oct 28, 2014 3:35:06 PM

I do have a problem with a business not serving someone because they are "gay", but I do have a problem with a business being forced to provide a service that the business owner does not want to participate in. This is very similar to the Hobby Lobby ruling about forcing a business owner to participate in abortion medication distribution.

The customer being inherently gay, no problem. A customer that chooses to make a mockery of the sacrament of marriage, a big problem, at least as far as forcing the store owner to participate against their will.

BabeTruth: <<<"So you don’t think stores should be allowed to have signs that set out their rules? You just want them to enforce the rules before letting people even know what the rules are?">>>

--I don't have a problem with that signage and policy, as long as the behavior that is allowing the store owner to cull its customers is evenly allowed or prohibited. Customers choosing to not wear a shirt should be entitled to the same rights and process as a customer that chooses to pretend that they are traditionally married.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:15,218
Points:2,533,930
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Oct 28, 2014 1:29:40 PM

sgm4law: "Perhaps the confusion comes from including discrimination of all types, and not acknowledging that discriminating on certain bases is illegal....Discriminating on characteristics which are immutable, such as sexual orientation, race, religion (well, they think it's immutable), national origin, gender? That's illegal."

If by "sexual orientation" you mean same-sex attraction, that is neither an immutable condition (being at least in many cases being a developmental issue, and not provably a genetic one -- the "gay gene" has proven very elusive), nof is it even the issue at all.

The issue as EZExit and I have stated, is a chosen behavior, which is far from being immutable. People have been known to be freed from SSA, or to have adjusted to it and still pursue either a celibate lifestyle or to marry (the opposite gender) and have children.

quoted by sgm4law: "By contrast, the claim to an exemption grounded in religion represents a claim to authority made from sources exogenous to the secular legal system itself, and in profound ways poses a determined threat to the idea of state power and to singular legal authority."

Religion is included as a prohibited basis for discrimination because the Founders recognized that an individual's duty to God preceded his duty to the nation. As long as America remained a nation with a pluralistic religious tradition under the Judeo-Christian umbrella, that produced no significant problem.

The problem now is that some want to replace the choice of religion, with the choice of a sexual lifestyle. The individual goes from being subject to God, to being subject to -- his or her own sexual urges.

That seems to me to be far more damaging to civil society than religion, because there is no higher standard to appeal to, than the individual.

GTH
Profile Pic
Weaslespit
Champion Author Cincinnati

Posts:16,638
Points:545,705
Joined:Sep 2008
Message Posted: Oct 28, 2014 12:40:15 PM

"Discriminating on characteristics which are immutable, such as sexual orientation, race, religion (well, they think it's immutable), national origin, gender? That's illegal."

Exactly.

Interesting link you posted.
Post a reply Back to Topics