- Joined
- Jul 1, 2011
- Messages
- 67,218
- Reaction score
- 28,530
- Location
- Lower Hudson Valley, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Irrelevant.
Indeed it doesYeah, because the constitution gives you the power to make that decision.
Yes, a really stupid one and irrelevant to boot.
Such stupid questions are best left unreasoned.
But I don't expect honesty in your posts.
Couer d'Alene didn't back down. The Hitching Post backed down by re-organizing as a religious organization and changed its' policy so it no longer performs non-christian marriages, which made it exempt from the anti-discrimination regulation
I've already provided a link showing how the cutting of a wedding cake is a religious symbolic gesture in this very thread. You stating the opposite does nothing to disprove that link.
Why do you even give a **** if law abiding citizens are gay?
Wow, you gave us a link of one website in which the cutting of the cake has been transformed into a religious practice.
Which is bogus of course, because as said, wedding cakes where a Roman tradition.
Good grief, continuing this lie doesn't change the truth j-mac. The law itself was flawed and the fact that it was changed to ensure no discrimination of gays was allowed reflects that.
Continuing this narrative that it was the fault of a reporter is absurd. Did you think the law allowed no discrimination before it entered public discussion?
Wait, what exact difference does it make if the law entered discussion because of a reporter? Does that make the law less flawed? Sour grapes all around.
NYC has several privately run bus companies. Most cities and counties have them. I know for certain that there are privately owned bus companies in the area I now live in.
I dont read but anti-SSM is to admit bigotry.
You do realize that around 314AD the majority of Romans were Christians right? In any case...you do not have the right to tell someone what is and isn't a part of their faith.
I read the City Attorney's letter, and he sure as hell did back down.
The fact the owners of the Hitching Post had filed the papers that made it a religious organization is irrelevant. It remained a for-profit business, and as such it remained subject to the city ordinance.
Wow, you gave us a link of one website in which the cutting of the cake has been transformed into a religious practice.
Which is bogus of course, because as said, wedding cakes where a Roman tradition.
The wedding cake can be used as a religious instrument but historically that is what people have made it into.
Wedding cake - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wedding cake history | Maisie Fantaisie Wedding Cakes
History of the Wedding Cake | Let Them Eat Cake!
The History of Wedding Cakes
Wedding Cakes in History | Edible Art Bakery & Dessert Cafe, Raleigh, NC
The Strange History of the Wedding Cake | Arts & Culture | Smithsonian
The 7 Stage Story Of The Wedding Cake |
Wedding Cake History | WeddingCakeCreations.com
Great Cake Places - The History of Wedding Cakes
A Historical Slice of the Wedding Cake | Curious History
And you can go on and on and on and on and on. Just because people make wedding cakes into something it is not, does not give them a religious Christian meaning and especially not something that makes them so holy that people who are not Christians or straight are not allowed to have them or some gay hating baker can deny gays a cake. Or how that same "Christian" baker should be allowed to deny jews, muslims, atheists, etc. a wedding cake because they are not part of his "illk"?.
Sorry, but the marriage is over when the priest/judge/whoever says "By the powers vested in me, you are now man and wife" (or man and man, or wife and wife). People can get married and be legally married without wedding cakes or anything that resembles that.
Ok, I'll take your word for NYC...That, by no means is "most", or "many", that's one. out of how many cities in the US?
In any case, I am done with this deflection. You tried to bring up a comparison of a metro, city bus service denying someone access to the bus, disingenuously tying the radical gay movement to the civil rights struggle of the 60s. And now, you are desperately trying to talk about anything other than this latest attack on people that had they not been sought out to make a point would have never been in the news for anything like this anyway...
So is homosexuality now a race?
You're the one making the claim that most cities do not have privately owned bus lines, so the burden of proof is on you. I would also note that it doesn't matter if a majority have no private lines (which I doubt) because all it would take is a significant # in order to place a burden on commerce.
Ummm, no. You seem to have forgotten the course this part of the discussion has taken. You tried to argue that the availability of alternatives somehow justifies discrimination, as if a little bit of discrimination is acceptable
FTR, racial bigotry is not the only form of bigotry.
And you really ignore that for more than 1500 years Christian weddings did not include wedding cakes? That the whole premise of the religious function of a wedding cake is another bogus attempt at making the wedding cake into a religious object?
As said, wedding cakes are used in virtually all weddings, even in the Netherlands these cakes are used even though a large majority of Dutch people are not religious. The wedding cake is part of the celebration after the event, it was not a religious object even in Roman age, it was a cultural and even an object of superstitition rather that of faith and Christian origin. And the Ancient Roman empire started long before the birth of the Catholic church.
Your point? You still do not have a Right to tell someone what is and isn't a part of their religion.
The bill was literally made into law 2 weeks ago. It received criticism from the minute it was passed because it allowed people to discriminate based on another person's sexual orientation. Continuing to claim that some imaginary crime needed to happen for it to be discussed is absurd.
Laws don't get changed unless people pay attention to them. What I have argued (though not explicitly) is that people would have noticed in the same way they notice discrimination that goes on in countries they don't live in. They research and then discuss topics. Believing the attention paid was the product of a reporter and not the law itself is absurd. Welcome to Politics 101.
And yet, it wasn't the "perception and attempted twisting of it" that got it changed. You can't twist a law that wouldn't have allowed for discrimination in the first place.
What reporter? Continuing to assert that nothing would have happened is saying that there was nothing wrong with the law and one person convinced mega-corporations, multinationals, and millions of people that there was something wrong with this law. That is patently absurd.
So religion trumps law?
According to the First Amendment it does. The Law has to reflect freedom of religion.So religion trumps law?
I posted this on another thread and nobody disputed it:
The legalization of gay marriage gave homosexual people the right to marry each other over the objections of both the religious, and non-religious, who believe that marriage should remain as it has throughout human history, as the joining of one man, to one woman. Having that right to marry, should not be a licence to force the participation of those who in doing so, would violate the tenets of their religion. In other words, the obtaining of a right by one group, shouldn't result in the sacrificing of a right by another group.
But there's more...
A gay couple having a formal ceremony with food, a photographer, a cake, music, etc... is a 100% optional activity and totally unnecessary to exercise their right to become a legally married gay couple. How can anyone justify that a person be legally compelled to defy their religious beliefs and participate in an event/ceremony that has no effect what so ever on the rights of gay people to wed?
It's clear that choosing not to cater to a gay wedding based on religious grounds, is not discrimination against gay people, but discrimination against a ceremony that has been deemed sacrilegious for thousands of years. Laws have been passed so that nobodys religious rights can infringe on a homosexual's right to engage in a same-sex marriage, so why shouldn't there be laws passed that assure that a homosexuals rights to wed, doesn't infringe on anyones religious rights and beliefs?
Isn't that not only fair, but the way it should be?
So religion trumps law?
Who's was the bus analogy to begin with? Yours or mine?
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?