Burgold Posted February 26, 2014 Author Share Posted February 26, 2014 Good. I agree too that all have a right to a defense. Now, the question becomes do those who believe they have been harmed have the right to defend themselves. Laws like these are a one way street. That's dangerous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Good. I agree too that all have a right to a defense. Now, the question becomes do those who believe they have been harmed have the right to defend themselves. Laws like these are a one way street. That's dangerous. it is dangerous to have to prove harm and provide a good reason to force another to act against their beliefs/will? yes freedom is dangerous,as are rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 I always said allowing same sex marriage would open up a whole new can of worms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 You've convinced me, twa. I think that the GOP should pass legislation allowing every government employee to discriminate against anybody they feel like. In fact, protecting every person in America who is willing to claim (without actually having to support the claim) that his religion says it's OK to ignore any law on the books. In every single state where the GOP has a majority. Because of the GOP's unswerving support for freedom for individuals. (And their willingness so say anything, to support something that's morally wrong.) Please. Keep passing them. ---------- I always said allowing same sex marriage would open up a whole new can of worms. Yeah, it's them damned gays who are doing this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 You've convinced me, twa. I think that the GOP should pass legislation allowing every government employee to discriminate against anybody they feel like. In fact, protecting every person in America who is willing to claim (without actually having to support the claim) that his religion says it's OK to ignore any law on the books. I hope ya don't run out of straw. add I notice ya decide to limit and unlimit your scope of the thread at will .....freedom is great ain't it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 I hope ya don't run out of straw. I can support every single claim I made about the law, with portions of the actual law. (Well, OK, "every person in America" probably doesn't apply, since these are only state laws.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 I can support every single claim I made about the law, with portions of the actual law. (Well, OK, "every person in America" probably doesn't apply, since these are only state laws.) is that like those that can support any belief with portions of the actual bible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Never mind. I'm tired of this.Please. Keep defending it. Keep trying to spin it. To justify it.PASS it. Preferably quickly, so lots of people can see the actual results.(If they try to pass it here, then I'll fight it.)But I really want places like Arizona to be the national poster boys for what Republicans do, when they have power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 It will never pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Never mind. I'm tired of this. Please. Keep defending it. Keep trying to spin it. To justify it. PASS it. Preferably quickly, so lots of people can see the actual results. (If they try to pass it here, then I'll fight it.) But I really want places like Arizona to be the national poster boys for what Republicans do, when they have power. it would be interesting to the actual results vs the spin. I want places like Cali, NY,Chicago, and Detroit to be the national poster boys of what Dems do when they have power. add a ,I think, reasonable look at the law itself http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/02/no-this-is-not-jim-crow-for-gays-understanding-arizona-s-b-1062.php or maybe it is just more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 did they want to create one where you are forced to act against your beliefs? one where you are compelled by law to do so to earn a living? there is a balance somewhere....denying a defense/freedom ain't it neither is swinging at each others nose well if you believe in treating citizens unequally then yes, they want to create one where you are forced to act against your beliefs. Tell me where in the Bible does it say not to provide services to gays.If there is something like that, it's probably Old Testament, but when the archaic stuff in OT gets pointed out, then Jesus refuting it gets brought up. Would Jesus have denied service? Doubtful. So really I'm failing to see where providing a service to gays is actually against Christianity. Just because someone says something is against their beliefs doesn't automatically give them free license. It has to be justified and actually exist. Discrimination is not a right. Your arguments allow for separate but equal. How's that feel? Be sure to tell the gay couple stranded on the side of the road and starving because nobody will help them due to their "religious beliefs" not to worry, they're being treated the American way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Discrimination is not a right. Your arguments allow for separate but equal. How's that feel? Be sure to tell the gay couple stranded on the side of the road and starving because nobody will help them due to their "religious beliefs" not to worry, they're being treated the American way. actually it is a right do you have any real justification for believing ensuring people are not starving or stranded is not a compelling govt interest? in other words it is not allowed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 actually it is a right do you have any real justification for believing ensuring people are not starving or stranded is not a compelling govt interest? in other words it is not allowed please point out where it says it is a right. as far as I know, the amendments say to not be discriminated against is a right based on various things. I see no logical argument why sexual orientation shouldn't be among them. Also, this entire time you're going on about a religious right to discriminate you haven't once bothered to see if such a claim is even legitimate, despite my bringing it up. If Jesus didn't support discriminating against the sinner than what religious backing is there for doing so? Equal Protection Clause: no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. But if a state has a law that allows for discrimination, then how can it also provide equal protection of the laws? That's great you say leaving them stranded is not allowed, but if you think that is going to keep people who suddenly can legally discriminate against gays from doing it in any situation they can then you're delusional. Some government official will have to make it happen, oh but that same government official was one who supported the discrimination bill, but I'm sure they won't purposefully drag their feet on it or anything. Bottom line is that situation shouldn't happen at all. There's no defense for it other than bigotry or warped ideology. Jesus wouldn't do it, so the religious defense coming from Christians (the ones pushing this bill) is actually bunk. Like I said before, if your ideology has you defending such discrimination then it's time to reassess. Again the arguments you're making are of the same sort used to justify separate but equal. There is no justifiable reason for permitting discrimination of this sort. Not state's rights, not religious rights. If those rights do allow for such discrimination then they are wrong and need to be fixed, not defended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Why would I defend on religious grounds any part of this but the marriage part? I clearly have a different view of marriage and what is is.....as is my right. http://blog.heritage.org/2014/02/26/texas-judge-wrong-strike-texas-marriage-law/ I do not force my views onto others,nor discriminate except with my vote and stated opinion....as is my right. My RIGHT....ya bigot that wants to impose your opinion you seem to have a flawed understanding of the equality clause, but perhaps similarly circumstanced means something else to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Equal Protection Clause: no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. But if a state has a law that allows for discrimination, then how can it also provide equal protection of the laws? Elk, I would assert that the 14th says that there can be no discriminatory laws. Which, I will point out, is the reason why federal judges, at least so far, are unanimous in ruling that laws which mandate that gays be treated differently violate it. (This, I will point out, is also one of the big reasons why the laws in this thread are being passed, and why they apply to government employees who want to use their government-granted powers, to discriminate. It's an attempt to say that "well, the government isn't discriminating, just the worker is.") But, for private individuals or businesses, the law, right now, is that a business can refuse to hire any employee, or refuse to serve any costumer, for any reason he wants, unless the government passes a law that says he can't. Pretty much everywhere in the US, it's illegal for a business to refuse to serve blacks. (Although no doubt such laws differ considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.) But pretty much everywhere, any business can refuse to serve Cowboy fans, and it's perfectly legal. Because the government hasn't passed a law, saying they can't. Discriminating against gays, right now, is one of those things that's illegal some places, but not in others. I assume it's illegal in California. And it's legal in Arizona. (Here where I live, it's legal in the state of Florida, but the city, and I think the county, prohibit it.) The constitution doesn't say what businesses can't do. It says what the government can't do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 But, for private individuals or businesses, the law, right now, is that a business can refuse to hire any employee, or refuse to serve any costumer, for any reason he wants, unless the government passes a law that says he can't. Pretty much everywhere in the US, it's illegal for a business to refuse to serve blacks. (Although no doubt such laws differ considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.) But pretty much everywhere, any business can refuse to serve Cowboy fans, and it's perfectly legal. Because the government hasn't passed a law, saying they can't. Discriminating against gays, right now, is one of those things that's illegal some places, but not in others. I assume it's illegal in California. And it's legal in Arizona. (Here where I live, it's legal in the state of Florida, but the city, and I think the county, prohibit it.) The constitution doesn't say what businesses can't do. It says what the government can't do. Good point. Hopefully something gets passed soon preventing that sort of discrimination because, IMO, discriminating against gays is the same as against blacks in that it's based on something they are born with. I see stuff like this bill get proposed and it just reminds me of separate but equal and it's appalling people would actually support or argue for a repeat of that based on such a petty reason, and using Christianity as an excuse even though Jesus wouldn't support such actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Why would I defend on religious grounds any part of this but the marriage part? I clearly have a different view of marriage and what is is.....as is my right. http://blog.heritage.org/2014/02/26/texas-judge-wrong-strike-texas-marriage-law/ I do not force my views onto others,nor discriminate except with my vote and stated opinion....as is my right. My RIGHT....ya bigot that wants to impose your opinion you seem to have a flawed understanding of the equality clause, but perhaps similarly circumstanced means something else to you. I asked the question about the clause, I didn't state it was a fact. Was actually looking for clarification, which Larry provided, not the assumption you made. Why should marriage be defended on a religious ground? Does 1 religion have the right to tell other religions they can't marry gays if they want to? No. As far as legal benefits of marriage, is there a sound legal argument against same sex marriages? No there isn't. What we have then with marriage is certain religions using the law to impose their views on everyone else. Nobody should force a religion to marry gays, and no religion should force others not to marry gays. Live and let live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 I asked the question about the clause, I didn't state it was a fact. Was actually looking for clarification, which Larry provided, not the assumption you made. Why should marriage be defended on a religious ground? Does 1 religion have the right to tell other religions they can't marry gays if they want to? No. As far as legal benefits of marriage, is there a sound legal argument against same sex marriages? No there isn't. What we have then with marriage is certain religions using the law to impose their views on everyone else. Nobody should force a religion to marry gays, and no religion should force others not to marry gays. Live and let live. Because it is a fundamental to my religion and life? The right comes from the vote I mentioned since it is a choice allowed me under our law. A sound legal argument is that there is less need for SSM,no inherent right found and of course a matter that has been left to the states to decide for themselves. Convince SCOTUS to define it as a right or convince the voters.....I don't oppose either option Live and let live .....except for those of a different opinion? sorry if I offend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Because it is a fundamental to my religion and life? The right comes from the vote I mentioned since it is a choice allowed me under our law. A sound legal argument is that there is less need for SSM,no inherent right found and of course a matter that has been left to the states to decide for themselves. Convince SCOTUS to define it as a right or convince the voters.....I don't oppose either option Live and let live .....except for those of a different opinion? sorry if I offend Key word is it is fundamental to YOUR religion. Again, that doesn't mean your religion owns all marriages. They have no right to tell others who they can and cannot marry. No, religions don't have the right to infringe on other religions. A sound legal argument is that there is no justification for telling an entity it can't marry gays even if a state legalizes it. SCOTUS should step up and say that in a ruling but in most recent one didn't go that far, eventually they will. Since citizens are being treated unequally when it comes to marriage due to several states then it has to go above them. Those with different opinions aren't following live and let live, they are following live and prevent others for living equally. Nice try. United Church of Christ, reform Judaism, some Quakers, Unitarian Universalist, they all marry gays. Lutherans are allowed decide on a church-by-church basis. So what right does the state have to infringe on their religious right to marry gays? Don't just say they have a right to because they passed it as law. Laws can be unjust and a ban on SSM is an unjust law. You say religions have the right to uphold their beliefs, so why shouldn't religions that honor gay marriage be allowed to uphold their beliefs? THAT is live and let live, where each religion can follow it's beliefs without pushing its beliefs on the other. Those who have the opinion a state shouldn't allow any SSM aren't following live and let live and you know that. Dishonest to suggest otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Key word is it is fundamental to YOUR religion. Again, that doesn't mean your religion owns all marriages. They have no right to tell others who they can and cannot marry. No, religions don't have the right to infringe on other religions. you don't get to dictate to me anymore than I can dictate to you . You seem back to your old definition of equal under the law there, which you are certainly entitled to....even if the court hasn't embraced it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 I wonder how many Southern Baptists in Texas would be equally pissed off if the Amish started pushing for their religious convictions to become law. This is the thing that is just laughable, because the very nature of justice and freedom is about the recognition of equality. And the far Right in each of these instances would go ballistic if another religion tried to do exactly what THEY themselves are trying to do! What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 I wonder how many Southern Baptists in Texas would be equally pissed off if the Amish started pushing for their religious convictions to become law. This is the thing that is just laughable, because the very nature of justice and freedom is about the recognition of equality. And the far Right in each of these instances would go ballistic if another religion tried to do exactly what THEY themselves are trying to do! What's good for the goose is good for the gander. I'm not southern baptist but I kinda like the Amish. feel free. it is a free country Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 I'm not southern baptist but I kinda like the Amish. feel free. it is a free country Not free to write your religious convictions into law.Plus I'm guessing that more than a few of your Houston neighbors might have something to say about codifying Amish piety into law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipwhich Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 She vetoed the bill http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/26/politics/arizona-brewer-bill/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 27, 2014 Share Posted February 27, 2014 Not free to write your religious convictions into law. Plus I'm guessing that more than a few of your Houston neighbors might have something to say about codifying Amish piety into law. Actually I am free to do so subject to the laws, in my own little way......same as you social justice types or SSM supporters I would prefer simply rebranding marriage to remove any religious inferences and opening it to all and any(to skip the next circus) till then you will deal with my little objections She vetoed the bill http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/26/politics/arizona-brewer-bill/ hardly surprising, almost deja vu-ish Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.