The Republicans’ Gay Freakout

[Absentglare]

Lol, you don't even see it. Both sides are equally guilty of trampling on the other sides rights all in the name of "thier" beliefs.

Bahaha what a load of bull****.

 

[cpwill]

Your rights end where my rights begin. You can't use your religion as a crutch for discrimination.

You don't have a right to other people's stuff.

 

[Renae]

Right = A claim possessed by a particular person by virtue of law. An entitlement to something.

And thus you and I speak different languages thus wasting both our time.

 

[Absentglare]

And thus you and I speak different languages thus wasting both our time.

You're the one making a claim, why don't you define what you think rights are and explain how two married homosexuals somehow affects yours ?

 

[cpwill]

You're the one making a claim, why don't you define what you think rights are and explain how two married homosexuals somehow affects yours ?

When I am forced, against my will, to participate.

 

[Absentglare]

When I am forced, against my will, to participate.

So never then ?

 

[cpwill]

So never then ?

On the contrary, we've had several high profile cases of precisely that. A bill to make it explicit that churches didn't have to participate if it violated their beliefs was just vetoed in Georgia, to much left wing celebration that they had successfully stamped down on those who would protect the rights of dissenters and heretics.

 

[Absentglare]

On the contrary, we've had several high profile cases of precisely that.

So have homosexuals been oppressed as they are forced to participate in heterosexual weddings ?

Or are you just making stuff up as you go ?

 

[cpwill]

So have homosexuals been oppressed as they are forced to participate in heterosexual weddings ?

I'm unaware of any such instances - but if a homosexual was forced to participate in heterosexual weddings, then absolutely their rights were violated.

 

[ludin]

Your rights end where my rights begin. You can't use your religion as a crutch for discrimination.

religious discrimination is still discrimination and as you say your rights end were others being.
it is a two way street.

 

[ludin]

Ok. My religion (that I just made up) says I don't have to pay taxes. Because First Amendment, I guess the government can't give me the Wesley Snipes treatment.

if you establish yourself as a religion and fall under that then any money that your religion would generate would be non-taxable.
any money that you personally made of course would be just like all pastors or religious figures.

 

[ludin]

Sorry if you thought the 1st Amd was about protecting bigots who cowardly hide their bigotry behind claims of religion.


Sadly, it seems likely that there is no deity to explain to them just how wrong they are, after they die.

religious bigotry is still bigotry. becareful who you call one because you might be calling yourself one as well.

 

[ludin]

Even if you were correct that religion was the true and only source of the discrimination, the 14th amendment's equal protection takes precedence, as it came later. To establish protections race, sex etc, government MUST also protect sexuality

I didn't persecute anyone either. If you want to discriminate, don't open a business in public. Start a private club like the KKK. This isn't a hard distinction to grasp

it doesn't matter if it came later I would say that it doesn't upsure anything if you want to make that argument the first amendment is 1st for a reason.
that it would upsure the 14th since it is the 1st amendment.

if you want to make the argument that order of precedents matters.

technically as the SCOTUS has ruled before people do not give up their 1st amendment rights simply because they enter a public square.
just because you open a business doesn't mean you forfeit your 1st amendment rights this that also would include religious protections.

why the courts ignore this is beyond me but probably because courts want to push the same activism that is consuming our society instead of
following the law.

 

[ludin]

The 1st amendment allows you to believe how you wish. However you beliefs cannot infringe on the rights of others, as no one has the right to do that to another human being. Since your rights cannot be infringed without due process of law, and the legal system is secular, and has no religion, no religion can be jammed down your throat, along with their morals, and beliefs. Forcing certain ways of life on people would violate one of reasons people came to America, to escape persecution, it would make us hypocrites to enjoy a free society, but not allow others to enjoy it purely because they are different.

this is 100% wrong.

that is not what the 1st amendment says.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

when the government passes laws that fines people for following their beliefs and or shuts their businesses down due to their religious beliefs they are in fact violating the 1st amendment.

 

[ludin]

That is not how the Constitution works... and I love the hi-jacking of "persecuted". The homosexuals were persecuted in factual history yet now the poor Persecutors are the persecuted, in your revisionist history? :lol:

that is exactly how it is supposed to work.

 

[Absentglare]

I'm unaware of any such instances - but if a homosexual was forced to participate in heterosexual weddings, then absolutely their rights were violated.

Really ?

They are absolutely held to the same anti-discrimination laws.

Or are you just dismally unaware of how our constitution works ?

 

[cpwill]

Really ?

Yes, really. If homosexuals were forced to participate in heterosexual weddings, against their beliefs, then their rights have been violated.

 

[nota bene]

I do not accept the illegitimate, arbitrary edict in Obergefell, and I hope both the next President and the states where majorities do not approve of homosexual marriage will refuse to comply with it. That would be a very sharp reminder to the Supreme Court that it has no power to enforce its decisions.

Could you summarize that illegitimacy please?

 

[Absentglare]

Yes, really. If homosexuals were forced to participate in heterosexual weddings, against their beliefs, then their rights have been violated.

Okay, so you think rights were violated when people had to bake cakes for interracial marriages ?

Or second marriages ?

Etc etc ?

 

[TheGoverness]

Okay, so you think rights were violated when people had to bake cakes for interracial marriages ?

Or second marriages ?

Etc etc ?

Yes it was! Baking a cake for a interracial couple, TOTALLY violated my rights as a God-Fearin', Gun Totin' Amurrican.

 

[Mr Person]

And thus you and I speak different languages thus wasting both our time.

If the language you speak does not use the standard English definition of the word "right", you've set yourself up to disagree with everybody who is speaking English...

 

[Henrin]

If you sell me a knife, and one month later I use that knife to cut a steak at a gay person's house, did you participate in my dinner?



The notion that selling someone a product, which they later use in a reception following a ceremony that you disagree with, is "forcing" you to "participate" in the earlier ceremony is laughable. It's transparent. It's a blatant attempt to hide anti-gay animus behind religion.

You know it. I know it. They know it.

We all know it.

You do realize that wedding cakes are often delivered to the ceremony, right?

 

[Thrilla]

For those who thought obergefell meant they will have to 'move on' from discriminating against lgbt:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/03/opinion/sunday/the-republicans-gay-freakout.html?_r=0

"OUR infrastructure is inexcusable, much of our public education is miserable and one of our leading presidential candidates is a know-nothing, say-anything egomaniac who yanks harder every day at the tattered fabric of civil discourse and fundamental decency in this country.

But let’s by all means worry about the gays! Let’s make sure they know their place...

It takes forever in this country to build a new bridge, tunnel or train line, but it took no time flat for politicians in the Tar Heel State to convene a special session, formally ostracize North Carolina’s L.G.B.T. voters and wrap conservative Christians in a tight embrace. Who says America’s can-do spirit is dead?...

Apparently conservatives love the concept of local control when the locality being given control tilts right, but they have a different view when it leans left."


very well-written IMO. Remember the 'states' rights' nonsense? Well whatever happened to citys' rights??

This only emphasizes the need for federal protections (the only kind i believe in, precisely because anything less is only transitory), or else this farce will drag on and on for decades more

nothing happened to "cities rights", they have never existed as a legal entity/doctrine.. cities hold no sovereignty, States do, and the nation does.

 

[Henrin]

Blah blah blah. Typical anarchist swill posing as something beginning with "L".



The rights you claim to have are determined by social contract. The social contract in this country lead to things like the equal protection of the law and the due process of the law, made applicable to the states by the 14th Amd. And I'm glad that the USSC extended this such that businesses who hold themselves to the public do not have the ability to discriminate on the basis of race, etc. I'm glad states/cities/towns have passed laws including sexual orientation in the list of things that bigots cannot discriminate on the basis of in the name of so-called "rights" or "liberty" (transparent mockeries of language).





However, I am sad that some libertarians understand neither that they are basically anarchists in their opposition to all things government, nor that "totalitarianism" describes Soviet Russia or North Korea, but not at all the United States of America***.

It is further unfortunate that libertarians, who puff themselves up on their statements about individual rights, defend the violation of the rights of others.



***which would not function as a country if so-called "libertarians" had their way.

Really? What social contract? You speak as if this "social contract" exists, but I don't recall ever signing anything called a social contract. How can my rights be determined by a make believe contract?

Frankly, anti-discrimination laws violate the right to property, the right to association, and the right to one's labor.

What right does anyone of us have to someones property, association or labor? Do I have a right to involuntary servants? The potential consumer has no rights to anything the other party is offering or could offer. When I approach you looking for trade there is nothing that gives me a right to make you trade with me.

 

[TheGoverness]

Really? What social contract? You speak as if this "social contract" exists, but I don't recall ever signing anything called a social contract. How can my rights be determined by a make believe contract?

Frankly, anti-discrimation laws violate the right to property, the right to association, and the right to one's labor.

Well, here in the United States, and by proxy Western Society, we've come into a contract of governance with one another, and we have decided that everyone is entitled to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.