A way forwarded (Obergefell)

[Truth in love]

Yes, they do, as it is enforcing the 9th Amendment. You can't grant privileges and rights to one group and deny them to another.

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

Really not sure how your making this mean what you are saying.

However so agree the rights and privileges should be the same AKA equal protection under the law.

 

[Truth in love]

It doesn't harm others. It doesn't infringe upon anyone's rights. Period.

tell that to everyone who lost a job or business. Oh wait they don’t count in your book because they don’t follow your beliefs and therefore have become less than a person?

 

[fantome profane]

Richland Florist Sued Over Religious Refusal For Service to Gay Wedding Ends Legal Battle

One of many people whose ability to provide for themselves and live by their beliefs(I would argue two of the most fendemental human rights) was endangered by people trying to force them to violate their values.

And because of this I can’t use the word marriage?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

tell that to everyone who lost a job or business. Oh wait they don’t count in your book because they don’t follow your beliefs and therefore have become less than a person?

My belief is if you serve the public you serve the public. No discrimination allowed. Don't like it? You are free to go do something else.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

tell that to everyone who lost a job or business. Oh wait they don’t count in your book because they don’t follow your beliefs and therefore have become less than a person?

And by the way, the same thing happened to those who didn't want to serve blacks. The same thing happened to those who wanted to own slaves.
Oh well. Cry a river. Society got over it and improved because bigotry was not tolerated.

 

[Truth in love]

And because of this I can’t use the word marriage?

No I’m saying that the courts overstepped their powers and caused a lot of harm.

 

[Truth in love]

My belief is if you serve the public you serve the public. No discrimination allowed. Don't like it? You are free to go do something else.

Oh I see so If my belief is law that is oppression, but your belief being law is great no matter who suffers.

Please tell me you see a problem with that.

 

[Truth in love]

And by the way, the same thing happened to those who didn't want to serve blacks. The same thing happened to those who wanted to own slaves.
Oh well. Cry a river. Society got over it and improved because bigotry was not tolerated.

So wanting to own a slave is now the moral equivalent of wanting religious freedom?

Do you actually believe that?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

tell that to everyone who lost a job or business. Oh wait they don’t count in your book because they don’t follow your beliefs and therefore have become less than a person?

Do you suspect that there are people who lost jobs or businesses following the passing of Loving v. Virginia, because they were not willing to cooperate with any procedures or follow laws to respect interracial marriage because of their particular religious conviction?

If so, do you think this is a significant enough consideration to re-think Loving v. Virginia? Should we re-think the rights of people of different races to marry because a fraction of a fraction of people who suffered negative consequences because they were now no longer able to use their official position to enforce their views on others and were unwilling to change?

 

[Truth in love]

Do you suspect that there are people who lost jobs or businesses following the passing of Loving v. Virginia, because they were not willing to cooperate with any procedures or follow laws to respect interracial marriage because of their particular religious conviction?

If so, do you think this is a significant enough consideration to re-think Loving v. Virginia? Should we re-think the rights of people of different races to marry because a fraction of a fraction of people who suffered negative consequences because they were now no longer able to use their official position to enforce their views on others and were unwilling to change?

The law needs to respect a persons religious freedom.

So we make make interracial marriage legal.

Bob refuses to provide such a service as he thinks it’s morally wrong. Bob loses out on the money he would have made. Great.

The state yelling Bob he can’t sell cake, take photos or rent out his back 40 unless he does so for interracial couples is where we have a problem.

That action would cross the line to have the state denying him his rights.


Now frankly it is my personal preference that Bob provide the service, but I have no right to force that on him.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The law needs to respect a persons religious freedom.

So we make make interracial marriage legal.

Bob refuses to provide such a service as he thinks it’s morally wrong. Bob loses out on the money he would have made. Great.

The state yelling Bob he can’t sell cake, take photos or rent out his back 40 unless he does so for interracial couples is where we have a problem.

That action would cross the line to have the state denying him his rights.


Now frankly it is my personal preference that Bob provide the service, but I have no right to force that on him.

You seem to have confused a great number of issues here.

Firstly, it is the case that an individual who runs a bakery refusing to provide a wedding cake for an interracial marriage (even if they do so on religious grounds) would be in contravention of law.

So, are you just against equality? Do you think people should have the RIGHT to use services they provide to discriminate against people based on protected characteristics?

Do you seriously believe that America is a worse place because we enshrined equality in law? Or do you think it is a better place? Because it is pretty obvious what the answer is.

 

[Truth in love]

You seem to have confused a great number of issues here.

Firstly, it is the case that an individual who runs a bakery refusing to provide a wedding cake for an interracial marriage (even if they do so on religious grounds) would be in contravention of law.

So, are you just against equality? Do you think people should have the RIGHT to use services they provide to discriminate against people based on protected characteristics?

Do you seriously believe that America is a worse place because we enshrined equality in law? Or do you think it is a better place? Because it is pretty obvious what the answer is.

Actually when you and the 1st and 14th amendment any law that prohibits a person from living by their beliefs is unlawful and out to be tossed.

Yes I oppose government forced systems that discriminate against one group in the name of not discriminating against another. I think as a personal choice and cultural value non discrimination is excellent, but when the force of government is applied people lose. For the last 20 or so years Christians have been the designated loser in many of these issues. In the 30’s in Germany is was the Jews. Recently in China it’s the Muslims. The groups may vary, but the harm is largely the same people being mistreated by the government when the my simply want to live by their beliefs.

We did not enshrine equality into law (at least not any time lately). We crated winners and losers and a great many feel just fine seeing those they dislike suffer because of it.
It now lawful, fair, just, civilized etc.

Would you have a gay shop owner compelled to crate work of art that she finds objectionable and hateful?


Should a taxi driver be compelled to take a person to conversation therapy? A rape? Be the get away car for for a bank hurst? Can I compel a black man to host a KKK rally? Require Twitter to let me call for murder?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Actually when you and the 1st and 14th amendment any law that prohibits a person from living by their beliefs is unlawful and out to be tossed.

Nothing about equality law prevents people from believing and practising what they like. There is no threat to free exercise of religion.

Yes I oppose government forced systems that discriminate against one group in the name of not discriminating against another.

Nobody is being discriminated against.

I think as a personal choice and cultural value non discrimination is excellent, but when the force of government is applied people lose.

Sure. People who are bigoted lose. Like they should.

For the last 20 or so years Christians have been the designated loser in many of these issues.

False. Bigots have been.

There are many Christians who have gained. For example, gay or black Christians who have gained massively.

In the 30’s in Germany is was the Jews. Recently in China it’s the Muslims. The groups may vary, but the harm is largely the same people being mistreated by the government when the my simply want to live by their beliefs.

Are you seriously comparing modern Christians in American to Jews in Nazi Germany?

We did not enshrine equality into law (at least not any time lately). We crated winners and losers and a great many feel just fine seeing those they dislike suffer because of it.
It now lawful, fair, just, civilized etc.

This is just meaningless word salad. I see no suffering resulting from these laws, just a fraction of the population of bigots being upset about it.

Would you have a gay shop owner compelled to crate work of art that she finds objectionable and hateful?

That depends entirely on what services they offer and whether what they find objectionable and horrible truly is objectionable and horrible. Every case should be evaluated on its own terms. Obviously, if I went to a baker and asked them to make a cake in the shape of an anus, they might turn down my request. However, if I wanted an anus cake from a bakery that specializes in anus-shaped cakes, but they turned me down because they don't like serving people with dark hair, that would be a contravention of the law.

Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything that they weren't already doing. They're being told - rightly - that to offer a service in accordance with law, you need to provide that service in a manner that is not designed to disadvantage people of certain protected characteristics.

That's the difference.

Should a taxi driver be compelled to take a person to conversation therapy? A rape? Be the get away car for for a bank hurst? Can I compel a black man to host a KKK rally? Require Twitter to let me call for murder?

Now you're just rambling. Every case is different. What we are talking about people providing services that they already offer to wider groups. That's it. They are not being "compelled to endorse rape" all of a sudden. They are being required by law to no longer discriminate against a particular group.

Why do you struggle with this distinction?

 

[Sand Dancer]

So wanting to own a slave is now the moral equivalent of wanting religious freedom?

Do you actually believe that?

I think she means that discriminating against someone by what they are classed as or by an innate quality is wrong.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So wanting to own a slave is now the moral equivalent of wanting religious freedom?

Do you actually believe that?

It was back then. And they were told oh well.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Oh I see so If my belief is law that is oppression, but your belief being law is great no matter who suffers.

Please tell me you see a problem with that.

Your assumptions. I never said anything about the law being great or oppressive. Again, my belief is if you go into business to serve the public then you serve the public. If you don't want to serve the public then go do something else.

 

[TheBannerofHomuraAkemi]

Your first problem is the belief that Republican's see lgbqt as humans. They don't. They want too overturn lawarence and obergefell. They want to make our existence illegal.

 

[Truth in love]

Nothing about equality law prevents people from believing and practising what they like. There is no threat to free exercise of religion.


Nobody is being discriminated against.


Sure. People who are bigoted lose. Like they should.


False. Bigots have been.

There are many Christians who have gained. For example, gay or black Christians who have gained massively.


Are you seriously comparing modern Christians in American to Jews in Nazi Germany?


This is just meaningless word salad. I see no suffering resulting from these laws, just a fraction of the population of bigots being upset about it.


That depends entirely on what services they offer and whether what they find objectionable and horrible truly is objectionable and horrible. Every case should be evaluated on its own terms. Obviously, if I went to a baker and asked them to make a cake in the shape of an anus, they might turn down my request. However, if I wanted an anus cake from a bakery that specializes in anus-shaped cakes, but they turned me down because they don't like serving people with dark hair, that would be a contravention of the law.

Nobody is forcing anyone to do anything that they weren't already doing. They're being told - rightly - that to offer a service in accordance with law, you need to provide that service in a manner that is not designed to disadvantage people of certain protected characteristics.

That's the difference.


Now you're just rambling. Every case is different. What we are talking about people providing services that they already offer to wider groups. That's it. They are not being "compelled to endorse rape" all of a sudden. They are being required by law to no longer discriminate against a particular group.

Why do you struggle with this distinction?

So are you denying that a person lives their beliefs at work?
Or maybe it is your view that those people don’t deserve their rights to be protected?

Let’s look at what is similar between the Jews and Christians.
1. A theory that they are evil and harming society. There is enough evidence on this web page alone to support that.
2, The belief that they are 2nd class people or worse. Your last post supports this.
3. Efforts to isolate them and to demonize them. Your labeling people bigots for simply living by their beliefs.
4. being driven out of positions of power and respect. We saw attempts at this at Barrots confirmation hearings. You’ve indicated support for someone whose beliefs you disagree with losing their businesses.
5. vandalism. We see many cases of churches being shot up and burned to the ground along with crisis pregnancy centers.

Now this has not as wide spread ad the Jews suffered and we have not sent Christians to concentration camps (but I’ve seen the idea called for off and on over the years).

We should be getting away from that path not going down it.

Your are missing the entire point.
If I provide a service let’s say selling sandwiches. And I happen to be Jewish. To you adding bacon might be a normal request but to be it’s abhorrent and I refuse. Do I deserve to lose my business?

Where is your right to require me to replace my deeply help beliefs with yours?

 

[Truth in love]

I think she means that discriminating against someone by what they are classed as or by an innate quality is wrong.

Yet so many do so to Christians on here every day and claim that it’s good thing. How does that work?

 

[fantome profane]

So are you denying that a person lives their beliefs at work?
Or maybe it is your view that those people don’t deserve their rights to be protected?

Let’s look at what is similar between the Jews and Christians.
1. A theory that they are evil and harming society. There is enough evidence on this web page alone to support that.
2, The belief that they are 2nd class people or worse. Your last post supports this.
3. Efforts to isolate them and to demonize them. Your labeling people bigots for simply living by their beliefs.
4. being driven out of positions of power and respect. We saw attempts at this at Barrots confirmation hearings. You’ve indicated support for someone whose beliefs you disagree with losing their businesses.
5. vandalism. We see many cases of churches being shot up and burned to the ground along with crisis pregnancy centers.

Now this has not as wide spread ad the Jews suffered and we have not sent Christians to concentration camps (but I’ve seen the idea called for off and on over the years).

We should be getting away from that path not going down it.

Your are missing the entire point.
If I provide a service let’s say selling sandwiches. And I happen to be Jewish. To you adding bacon might be a normal request but to be it’s abhorrent and I refuse. Do I deserve to lose my business?

Where is your right to require me to replace my deeply help beliefs with yours?

So would you support a the right for a business to refuse to serve Jews? If serving Jews went against their deeply held religious beliefs?

I have been through this argument uncounted times before. It is not about what they are asking people to do, it is who the customer is. If you sell cakes then you sell cakes. You don’t get to say I won’t sell this cake to a Jew, or a Muslim, or a gay person.

You can’t have a “whites only lunch counter” and you can’t have a “straights only florist shop”.