U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-12-2015, 02:41 PM
 
525 posts, read 574,070 times
Reputation: 195

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unsettomati View Post

Stop pretending you care at all about children. You don't. You're just upset that this generation is not raising another generation that shares your irrational dislike of gays.
Apparently they are still sadly young generations of bigots (including surely hypocritical) from the Midwest that dislike gays. I knew two guys who used to be my best pals who grew up in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, the other grew up in Dwight, IL (small country towns). Once they found out I am gay they stopped associating with me and even contributed to gay rumors about me in college, passively-aggressively I was bullied. One of them before friendship ended, told me how upset he was when supreme court of Iowa overruled ban in favor of same-sex marriage in Iowa. Like he really cared how it would affected his life despite being straight Maybe they weren't, because they always more closely associated themselves with frat guys and spent more time, focus and energy on themselves and their fraternity than dating girls.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-12-2015, 02:41 PM
 
Location: Katonah, NY
21,199 posts, read 20,153,066 times
Reputation: 22092
Quote:
Originally Posted by loriinwa View Post
No it wouldn't! You are seeing to change the definition and traditions of Western Civilization because you don't want the choice of partner offered under the current and only definition of marriage.

I made this analogy before, but I doubt you will get it, since analogies are hard for some people, but let's try.

If the government provided free ice cream (opposite sex) to every adult male and female (marriage), but a small group hated ice cream and demanded frozen yogurt (same sex), based solely on the reason that they were attracted to Fro-Yo and hated ice cream, and FORCED the government to change the laws to extend free Frozen yogurt, based solely on their taste in frozen treats, THAT IS SPECIAL TREATMENT.
What scares you about gay marriage? What is so scary about love? Adults should be able to marry the person they love. This isn't about special treatment. Marriage is about legally joining two adults in love. You can try to rationalize this any way that you want to - but you are on the losing end of this battle.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 02:42 PM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
19,428 posts, read 9,767,581 times
Reputation: 7535
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanguardisle View Post
The closed stall door does not offer total privacy in most bathrooms, because you can still see inside the stall in the space between the door and the side walls if someone were to look, and so because of how vulnerable a person is, due to what goes on in a bathroom and how they must undress inside the stall, I personally feel it is inappropriate for a strange man to be in there with ladies.
Unless you are wearing a one piece jumpsuit you do not have to "undress" in the bathroom. and if someone is peeking, you alert the management of the building.

I understand that you might feel it is inappropriate. In all honesty, I have never had anyone peeking through the doors at me even when I was in a unisex bathroom. So it seems to me more like people are creating scenarios in their heads to worry about.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 02:45 PM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
19,428 posts, read 9,767,581 times
Reputation: 7535
Quote:
Originally Posted by loriinwa View Post
No it wouldn't! You are seeing to change the definition and traditions of Western Civilization because you don't want the choice of partner offered under the current and only definition of marriage.

I made this analogy before, but I doubt you will get it, since analogies are hard for some people, but let's try.

If the government provided free ice cream (opposite sex) to every adult male and female (marriage), but a small group hated ice cream and demanded frozen yogurt (same sex), based solely on the reason that they were attracted to Fro-Yo and hated ice cream, and FORCED the government to change the laws to extend free Frozen yogurt, based solely on their taste in frozen treats, THAT IS SPECIAL TREATMENT.
just like those interracial couples wanted to change the definition because they didn't like the choice of partner under the law of the time.

Just like women wanted to change the current law about who were allowed to vote.

Just like women wanted to change the law about being raped by their husbands and it being perfectly legal.

Just like blacks wanted to change the law that said that they were not considered citizens or even fully human.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 02:48 PM
 
920 posts, read 477,974 times
Reputation: 638
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose View Post
Marriage was not even legal in Oregon when the baker refused the lesbian couple. They were having a commitment ceremony not a wedding.

What part of religious beliefs do not exempt ANYONE from generally applicable laws do you not get?

Why did the businesses have to break the law and get themselves in trouble?

I have not called anyone a bigot or a hater, I am simply trying to explain how laws work in the real world and that no ones personal religious beliefs give them special rights to break the law.

And I am trying to explain to you that the rights guaranteed in the Constitution cannot be overridden by state or city ordinances. If they could, then a state could pass laws making it legal to deny blacks the right to vote.

A state law that requires a business owner to defy his religious freedoms, should be deemed unconstitutional.

If this bakery was the only bakery in town and the denial to bake the cake would result in denial of any ability for this couple to get a wedding cake, you might have an argument.

The bakery was not refusing to bake cupcakes or a birthday cake or any other baked good for the couple.

The point is that a wedding cake would be part of a specific ceremony that supports and encourages the activities (homosexual sex) that the bakery owners' faith defines as a moral sin. Thus, participating in the ceremony by providing the wedding cake goes against the bakers' religious values and denies him his first amendment right to freely exercise his faith.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 02:48 PM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
19,428 posts, read 9,767,581 times
Reputation: 7535
Quote:
Originally Posted by vanguardisle View Post
In the Oregon case was the bakery being asked to just bake the cake for a gay couple or would it involve them having to actually bring the cake to the gay wedding? I have a legal question. Had the owner of the bakery told the gay couple that while he would agree to bake the cake for them if they really wanted him to he disagreed with their lifestyle and felt uncomfortable doing so would they still have been legally able to sue?
Generally the cake is delivered to the reception, and there was no wedding until 2 years later they were having a commitment ceremony.

If the baker had agreed to make the cake he could have told them he really didn't like them, thought they were abominations, or what ever he chose and would not have been breaking the law. The law simply says that you can not refuse service to anyone based on race, religion, sex, or sexual orientation. Not that you have to be nice to them, you just have to sell them any item you have for sale.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 02:49 PM
 
29,931 posts, read 15,264,016 times
Reputation: 15657
Quote:
Originally Posted by loriinwa View Post
If the government provided free ice cream (opposite sex) to every adult male and female (marriage), but a small group hated ice cream and demanded frozen yogurt (same sex), based solely on the reason that they were attracted to Fro-Yo and hated ice cream, and FORCED the government to change the laws to extend free Frozen yogurt, based solely on their taste in frozen treats, THAT IS SPECIAL TREATMENT.
It's more than a little specious to compare taste in frozen treats with sexual orientation, but of course you know that. That being said, if the government hands out frozen treats in the first place, why shouldn't it accommodate those whose tastes run different? They obey the laws, pay their taxes, no? What makes it right for the Ice Cream faction to say "Frozen treats for us, but not for you?"
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 02:49 PM
 
Location: Nescopeck, Penna.
11,409 posts, read 6,820,345 times
Reputation: 14473
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
Oh dear, here we go again.

Christians in Saudi Arabia are perfectly free to worship Allah in the local mosque, like everybody else. But they want to build churches and worship Jesus. SPECIAL TREATMENT.
The right to practice your religious activity is NOT special treatment, but the privilege of using the power of the state's monopoly on the legal use of force, (including judicial actions) to advance your own viewpoint most assuredly IS.

And that is the central point of this dispute that continues to demonstrate the inherent contradiction in "LGBT militancy" -- as opposed to a basic recognition of the sexuality and dignity of all individuals, gay or straight.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 02:51 PM
 
920 posts, read 477,974 times
Reputation: 638
Quote:
Originally Posted by jjrose View Post
just like those interracial couples wanted to change the definition because they didn't like the choice of partner under the law of the time.

Just like women wanted to change the current law about who were allowed to vote.

Just like women wanted to change the law about being raped by their husbands and it being perfectly legal.

Just like blacks wanted to change the law that said that they were not considered citizens or even fully human.

Wrong again. The interracial couple were not trying to redefine marriage based on their sexual preference, they were seeking equal treatment as a man and a woman under the laws that already existed. Marriage is between one man and one woman. That definition never included the race or ethnicity of either participant, which is why that law was unconstitutional.

You are arguing apples while trying to prove oranges.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2015, 02:54 PM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
19,428 posts, read 9,767,581 times
Reputation: 7535
Quote:
Originally Posted by loriinwa View Post
And I am trying to explain to you that the rights guaranteed in the Constitution cannot be overridden by state or city ordinances. If they could, then a state could pass laws making it legal to deny blacks the right to vote.

A state law that requires a business owner to defy his religious freedoms, should be deemed unconstitutional.

If this bakery was the only bakery in town and the denial to bake the cake would result in denial of any ability for this couple to get a wedding cake, you might have an argument.

The bakery was not refusing to bake cupcakes or a birthday cake or any other baked good for the couple.

The point is that a wedding cake would be part of a specific ceremony that supports and encourages the activities (homosexual sex) that the bakery owners' faith defines as a moral sin. Thus, participating in the ceremony by providing the wedding cake goes against the bakers' religious values and denies him his first amendment right to freely exercise his faith.
What I am trying to tell you is that the supreme court has already found that religious beliefs do not exempt you from generally applicable laws.
I can not use drugs and claim that it is part of my religious beliefs so the laws don't apply to me.
I can not kill my child and claim that honor killings are part of my religious beliefs so the laws don't apply.
I can not throw my baby off of a tower and claim it is part of my religious beliefs so laws don't apply.

So you can not violate anti-discrimination laws and claim that the laws don't apply to you.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Current Events
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top