- Joined
- Jan 28, 2013
- Messages
- 94,823
- Reaction score
- 28,342
- Location
- Williamsburg, Virginia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I don't exactly see anybody trying to make their marriages illegal nor barring their access to places of public accommodation.
It does in an orderly civilized society, where they wish to practice their faith. I remind you that there are ways for them to both conduct business and keep their faith without practicing random discrimination.
The movement from illegal homosexuality to gay marriage has been accomplished in 10% of the time it took to get from the Emancipation Proclamation to the Civil Rights Act. Your comparison fails.
The movement from illegal homosexuality to gay marriage has been accomplished in 10% of the time it took to get from the Emancipation Proclamation to the Civil Rights Act. Your comparison fails.
And just what are their legitimate human rights and constitutional claims?
Let's hope your first sentence is true.
As for the rest, one shouldn't have to pass a religious test in order to do business.
Well, some of us might expect more from people these days than we could have expected in 1865. Then again, if you're looking for excuses for bigotry, I suppose that one works as well as any other.
Again, tolerance means everyone is a little bit disappointed.
LGBT customers will be disappointed while the "Christian" business owners will be anything but.
The business owners will lose business and risk losing more.
The bigotry is on both sides of this question. Tolerance means everyone has to be a little bit disappointed.
That's their choice to make.
That's better than saying it's all on the left.
Apparently you've shifted to the center just as Jeb Bush has tonight .eace
Please see the link in #257. It is anything but cavalier.
What would be your question?
The campaigns of which you are apparently unaware were quite powerful and lasted centuries.
Lursa said:Really? I would like some sources for that, specifically for the institution of marriage.
Okay, blatant trolling on your part, myopic stupidity on Kathleen Parker's part.
Does this clarify it for you? I asked for you to source this statement:
Sorry, but I can't discern a point to answer.
The movement from laws against homosexuality to gay marriage has been accomplished in about 10% of the time it took to move from Appomattox to the Civil Rights Act, so no, I don't think think acceptance of some messiness at this moment is unreasonable. Especially since the number of people directly affected negatively would be minuscule.
If it's 'wrong,' it's wrong. If gays deserve equal rights, then they do....period.
And each individual deserves that respect and equality....IMO that may be part of the problem....not seeing gays as individuals....just seeing their 'sexual habits.' Yet, minority or not...the Const. specifically protects minorities from the majority.
We now are on a tangent from bakeries and wedding photographers tho....because SSM does not infringe on anyone's religious freedom, while there are indeed 2 sides to 'serving' the sinners.
What is it about the institution of marriage that you want to know?
We'll have to disagree. I think she has it just right.
So you cannot support your claim that the challenges to the other things allowed in marriage that I mentioned (adultery, fornication, other sinners, non-believers) all happened in the past? Fine, just say so.
I can repost AGAIN where you made the claim, including my post that included my initial statements, but it's looking like that would be an exercise in futility....since you evade again.
Presuming she's not trolling, then she's demonstrating an astonishing degree of myopia. The problem isn't about religious freedom (except insofar as religious freedom is cited as a pretext for behaving like complete assholes towards other people), but about creating a de facto second class. By barring the minority from patronizing as many businesses as the majority has access to(which includes schools and financial institutions, btw, not just bakeries and wedding photographers as this stream of stories would have us believe), you are creating a disadvantaged class. Of course the majority has no problem trolling everybody as you did by saying "just go to another business," because the majority is fully aware that as a majority they can in no way be meaningfully threatened by a minority.
It was my response to your opinion that the delays and discomfort of 'adjustment' are reasonable.
Obviously, I dont feel that it is (reasonable).
I am part of a generation that people will look back on much as they did those that accepted slavery.....ignorant at best, malicious at worst. I hope that this is overcome so that history will look back and see change for the better, and not ignorance. I do not wish to be included in the former judgements.
And so, no, I dont feel it's reasonable. You dont agree, I understand. No response needed if you have none.
SSM is secure, and the extraordinarily rapid cultural evolution to achieve that is experienced by religious conservatives as an assault on their consciences.
I've got a question about all this.
Let's say that there are 10 bakeries in the local area. Nine of the bakeries are pretty generic but one specializes in Christian themed goods. They primarily make cakes, cookies and cupcakes decorated with angels, crosses and other Christian themed adornment. They don't have a sign on their door or anything that says "Christians Only" but it's pretty obvious what their business model is. Now a gay couple decides to get married. They have been very active in the "gay rights" movement and want to make a statement so they intentionally choose this particular baker to provide a cake for their wedding because they are sure that there will be resistance. Sure enough, the Christian baker turns the job down based on their religious convictions.
Now here's the question, in this scenario who is discriminating against whom?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?