• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Pervert-Rights Supporters Swore This Wasn't Going To Happen…

Status
Not open for further replies.
molten_dragon said:
Yeah, this is why they're being forced to do it. Something like a wedding chapel for hire is a grey area though, and they should probably not be required to perform gay weddings if it's against their religious beliefs.
Click to expand...


By their own actions....this is a business not a church.
 
CLAX1911 said:
No, they can't do squat because you can go other places and get married.
Click to expand...
Bigots are getting smarter, such as learning to argue details instead if just being open. I think itd too dangerous yet, people will find ways to be assholes
 
Bob Blaylock said:
For years, those in favor of same-sex marriage have argued that all Americans should be free to live as they choose. And yet in countless cases, the government has coerced those who simply wish to be free to live in accordance with their belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

Ministers face a 180-day jail term and $1,000 fine for each day they decline to celebrate the same-sex wedding.

Just this weekend, a case has arisen in Idaho, where city officials have told ordained ministers they have to celebrate same-sex weddings or face fines and jail time.​

Government to Ordained Ministers: Celebrate Same-Sex Wedding or Go to Jail
Click to expand...

Bob, your title to this thread is highly inappropriate. The way you have used it here is a gay slur.

Just thought you needed to be called out on that.
 
tacomancer said:
Bigots are getting smarter
Click to expand...

Technologically speaking yes, they're starting to make more higher production value movies about how great life would be for everyone if "Those people" didn't have equal rights.

Showing sunny skies and happy families.

But their arguments haven't gotten smarter.

They will lose in the end... as they always have.
 
MaggieD said:
Bob, your title to this thread is highly inappropriate. The way you have used it here is a gay slur.

Just thought you needed to be called out on that.
Click to expand...

I have no sympathy for those who find the plain truth to be offensive. Those who take the side of evil need to be offended.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
I have no sympathy for those who find the plain truth to be offensive.
Click to expand...

It is not truth.

We are not deviants.

We are not perverts.

The real truth is some lads like to take it up the bum and there's nothing wrong with that... that's what you're offended by.
 
Jetboogieman said:
It is not truth.

We are not deviants.

We are not perverts.

The real truth is some lads like to take it up the bum and there's nothing wrong with that... that's what you're offended by.
Click to expand...

You know, no matter what you are faced with in a public forum, you have an obligation not to degrade yourself to make a point.
 
tacomancer said:
Bigots are getting smarter, such as learning to argue details instead if just being open. I think itd too dangerous yet, people will find ways to be assholes
Click to expand...
Do you know what it takes to be an "ordained minister?" I can go to a website click a few buttons, enter my name, bam, ordained minister. I could get a friend to do it for a bottle of schnapps. Or a slice of cake at the reception. They have no control.
 
A change to how religious institutions including parishes, chapels, etc... marry people has to change with the changing laws. If a chapel doesn't want to marry a gay couple they have to stop marrying people at the chapel all together, and move it to a church or stop doing marriages if gay marriage is against their beliefs.
 
MaggieD said:
I guess we'll see. And, in the meantime, the little chapel will go out of business if they don't cooperate. *shrug*

Should a church be able to refuse to marry black people? Should ministers be able to hide their bigotry behind their collar? Personally, I don't think so. In a world where even I could become a minister this afternoon under the auspices of The Church of What's Happenin' Now, I don't put much stock in giving ministers/priests or anyone else a way to circumvent discrimination laws.

You?
Click to expand...


Legally:

Should a Church be able to refuse to marry black people? In my opinion - Yes.

Should ministers be able to hide their bigotry behind their collar? In my opinion - Yes.


This isn't a "Church" which by legal statute is a non-profit religious organization. This is a for profit business. However the application of the law in this case would require members of the clergy to perform religious ceremonies that conflict with the teachings of their flavor of religion.

Having the government determine what is or isn't valid religious doctrine for members of the clergy is a very dangerous road to go down.




Personally:

I can discuss the application of Public Accommodation laws, that is one thing.

My personal opinion though is that the time for Public Accommodation laws may have been needful 3 generations ago, but I agree with Barry Goldwater who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because the Public Accommodation provisions extended government into the functioning of private businesses. Are the Constitutional? Yes. Can States regulate intrastate commerce and are they legal from a State law perspective? Yes.

Given the changes in society over the last three generations including the "corporatization" of the business environment whereby gas, food, travel, lodging, medical services, etc. function as parts of a larger corporate entity that would maintain non-discrimination policies - because it's bad for business. It's time to have a serious discussion about repealing Public Accommodation law as they apply to private business entities. Public Accommodation laws should only apply to: (a) governmental entities, (b) the ability of governmental entities to contract and or purchase goods from private businesses, and (c) emergency medical care in life threatening situations (but not elective situations like cosmetic surgery).

The days of Jim Crow laws are long gone. They days when black people couldn't by food unless it was from a black grocer, by gas unless it was from a black gas station, travel and stay in a hotel unless it served "coloreds" are long gone. Society has changed. We are no longer a country where almost all businesses were family owned establishments setting their own rules. Today many businesses are tied to corporate entities either through direct ownership or subject to corporate policies through franchise arrangements. Society is different today because in general we are much more mobile interacting and serving diverse peoples. We are also in the information age where the impact of discriminatory action goes far beyond the local impact of a situation. News, online review sites, social media, Craig's List, Angies List, etc. - they all function to spread the word about how a business functions - I have trust in humans.

That doesn't mean there won't be isolated cases of discrimination, there probably will be. But no where near what existed in the past. Sometime sometimes freedom means defending those you disagree with.



>>>>

>>>>
 
Bob Blaylock said:
For years, those in favor of same-sex marriage have argued that all Americans should be free to live as they choose. And yet in countless cases, the government has coerced those who simply wish to be free to live in accordance with their belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

Ministers face a 180-day jail term and $1,000 fine for each day they decline to celebrate the same-sex wedding.

Just this weekend, a case has arisen in Idaho, where city officials have told ordained ministers they have to celebrate same-sex weddings or face fines and jail time.​

Government to Ordained Ministers: Celebrate Same-Sex Wedding or Go to Jail
Click to expand...

do they marry people for their church or they running a business?
 
Bob Blaylock said:
If a Kashrut restaurant won't make me a bacon cheeseburger, do I have a right to bring in my own chef to use their kitchen to make me the meal that the “house chef” refuses to make?
Click to expand...

a more accurate comparison is they will make the sandwich for every one else but just not for you because your gay
 
Bob Blaylock said:
If by “we” you mean sexual deviants such as homosexuals, then yes, you are the very definition of “perverts”. That's what the word “pervert” means.
Click to expand...

only in your minde man


1per·vert
verb \pər-ˈvərt\

: to change (something good) so that it is no longer what it was or should be

: to cause (a person or a person's mind) to become immoral or not normal














EasyBib






Full Definition of PERVERT

transitive verb


1

a : to cause to turn aside or away from what is good or true or morally right : corrupt

b : to cause to turn aside or away from what is generally done or accepted : misdirect

2

a : to divert to a wrong end or purpose : misuse

b : to twist the meaning or sense of : misinterpret

you can manage deviant in the sense that its rare

and personally you can use the moral sense of the word though it should be noted deviant is not immoral necsielry like my left handed ness or homosexuality as far as im concerned

de·vi·ant
adjective \-ənt\

: different from what is considered to be normal or morally correct

but perversion requires peapole to alter something peapole are gay naturally



now you know
 
Bob Blaylock said:
I have no sympathy for those who find the plain truth to be offensive. Those who take the side of evil need to be offended.
Click to expand...

but you seem to be taking the side of evil over plain truth
 
CLAX1911 said:
Do you know what it takes to be an "ordained minister?" I can go to a website click a few buttons, enter my name, bam, ordained minister. I could get a friend to do it for a bottle of schnapps. Or a slice of cake at the reception. They have no control.
Click to expand...

It still doesn't promote a better culture though. Control is only one aspect.

I am sure some idiot will pick this up as proof i am fascist or something as well.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
If a Kashrut restaurant won't make me a bacon cheeseburger, do I have a right to bring in my own chef to use their kitchen to make me the meal that the “house chef” refuses to make?
Click to expand...

Not an accurate analogy.

If the restaurant refuses to serve you because you are a Christian, they are violating antidiscrimination laws.
 
Deuce said:
Not an accurate analogy.

If the restaurant refuses to serve you because you are a Christian, they are violating antidiscrimination laws.
Click to expand...

I disagree. It's not about the prospective customer's beliefs or other attributes, but about a customer demanding a good or service that the merchant isn't in the business of offering.

A Kashrut restaurant is not in the business of offering meals that violate the principles of Kashrut, such as a meal that includes both meat and dairy in the same meal, or one that includes “unclean” meat, such as bacon. It is not reasonable to walk into a Kashrut restaurant and demand a bacon cheeseburger.

A wedding chapel is in the business of performing weddings, and not in creating sick mockeries of weddings. It is no more reasonable to demand that a wedding-related business cater to a sick mockery of a wedding than it is to demand that a Kashrut chef prepare a bacon cheeseburger.


As a Christian, I can expect to go into a Kashrut restaurant, and order a meal among those that the restaurant offers. If they refuse to sell to me, the same meal that they would sell to a Jew, just because I am not a Jew, then we can rationally talk about discrimination. If I am not interested in anything that they are offering on the menu, and I demand that they prepare for me a meal that is not among their usual offerings (even without taking into account that this meal that I am demanding might require the chef to violate his religious beliefs) then I am not being reasonable, and I have no reason to expect them to comply with such a demand.

A sick homosexual mockery of a wedding is not the same thing as a genuine wedding, and there is no legitimate basis on which to demand that someone who is in the business of providing or supporting the latter should equally provide or support the former.
 
Last edited:
Bob Blaylock said:
I disagree. It's not about the prospective customer's beliefs or other attributes, but about a customer demanding a good or service that the merchant isn't in the business of offering.

A Kashrut restaurant is not in the business of offering meals that violate the principles of Kashrut, such as a meal that includes both meat and dairy in the same meal, or one that includes “unclean” meat, such as bacon. It is not reasonable to walk into a Kashrut restaurant and demand a bacon cheeseburger.

A wedding chapel is in the business of performing weddings, and not in creating sick mockeries of weddings. It is no more reasonable to demand that a wedding-related business cater to a sick mockery of a wedding than it is to demand that a Kashrut chef prepare a bacon cheeseburger.


As a Christian, I can expect to go into a Kashrut restaurant, and order a meal among those that the restaurant offers. If they refuse to sell to me, the same meal that they would sell to a Jew, just because I am not a Jew, then we can rationally talk about discrimination. If I am not interested in anything that they are offering on the menu, and I demand that they prepare for me a meal that is not among their usual offerings (even without taking into account that this meal that I am demanding might require the chef to violate his religious beliefs) then I am not being reasonable, and I have no reason to expect them to comply with such a demand.

A sick homosexual mockery of a wedding is not the same thing as a genuine wedding, and there is no legitimate basis on which to demand that someone who is in the business of providing or supporting the latter should equally provide or support the former.
Click to expand...

Race, religion, gender, and (in some states) sexuality are protected classifications under public accommodation laws. A for-profit business cannot discriminate against customers on the basis of these characteristics.

Meat is not a protected classification.

This wedding chapel was a for-profit business offering space for ceremonies. They could not deny service to a Jew for being Jewish, or an Asian for being Asian. Right?

"Space for a wedding ceremony" was not some ridiculous product they don't offer. It was literally the basis for their business.
 
Deuce said:
Race, religion, gender, and (in some states) sexuality are protected classifications under public accommodation laws. A for-profit business cannot discriminate against customers on the basis of these characteristics.

Meat is not a protected classification.

This wedding chapel was a for-profit business offering space for ceremonies. They could not deny service to a Jew for being Jewish, or an Asian for being Asian. Right?

"Space for a wedding ceremony" was not some ridiculous product they don't offer. It was literally the basis for their business.
Click to expand...

I don't know that “space for a wedding ceremony” is what they are offering. They seem to be offering the wedding ceremony itself, officiated by a minister of a specific church, and in accordance with the policies and doctrines of that church.

In any event, a sick homosexual mockery of a wedding ceremony is not the same thing as a genuine wedding ceremony.

And it is genuine wedding ceremonies that this minister is in the business of providing. There's no rational basis on which to demand that he must also provide service to a sick mockery of a wedding ceremony; that's not the business he's in.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom