1st shoe drops for Washington florist under fire for faith

[loriinwa]

Originally Posted by jjrose

Taken in context, homosexual relationships were not even mentioned in the bible.
Cult temple practices including orgies and homosexual sex were discussed, but not loving committed relationships.

Christian values like owning other humans, and considering women as little more than property? Great values.

Really?

Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination.

Again, your failure to put things into context defeats your argument. And your belief that women were not treated as property in prior to Moses is incredibly ignorant.

[kokonutty]

Originally Posted by loriinwa

But the Constitution does not guarantee protections of relationships, it guarantees protections of individuals. That is why a gay person cannot be treated differently than a straight person or a person of color or a man be treated differently than a woman.

But, take for example, the government (IRS) treats the relationship of a married couple's differently than it treats a couple that is co-habituating. It treats a family of four's relationship differently than it treats a single mother's relationship. By giving different "relationships" different deductions or credits based solely on the relationship that is reported to the IRS.

The IRS and some companies provide credits for adopting children, but those same credits are not offered to children born of the individual. Isn't that treating a relationship differently? The FMLA leave is the same for a woman on maternity leave to care for a child she gave birth to or a child she adopted, so the individuals must be treated equally under the law, but the relationship of an adoptive family and a "non-adoptive" family.

This is true but it is a matter for an entirely different thread. Unequal treatment between the wed and the unwed is discrimination. All governments should get completely out of the business of licensing, recognizing, awarding benefits or regulating any type of marriage. If people feel a need or desire to couple that should be done without the imprimatur of government.

[loriinwa]

Originally Posted by badlander

No I don't, I was making a point. The point is you are trying to push sex with children to go along with same sex in order to build a sense of fear and disgust towards same sex marriage.

I am not trying to push anything. You are the one pushing an agenda. I am asking you to explain why the arguments made by certain groups that echo the same arguments of homosexuals are any less valid for ending societal taboos? I neither fear, nor am I disgusted by "gay marriage."

I find the engagement of two males or two females in mutual masturbation to be a deviant form of sexual pleasure and nothing I find particularly worthwhile, but I feel the same way about pornography or orgies or multi-party sexual encounters, etc.

[loriinwa]

Originally Posted by kokonutty

This is true but it is a matter for an entirely different thread. Unequal treatment between the wed and the unwed is discrimination. All governments should get completely out of the business of licensing, recognizing, awarding benefits or regulating any type of marriage. If people feel a need or desire to couple that should be done without the imprimatur of government.

It is not for a different thread. It supports my argument (which you and Petunia have both agreed with) that the Government treats relationships differently and therefore there is not constitutional guarantee of equal treatment for relationships.

I agree that the government should not be involved in marriage!

[jjrose]

Originally Posted by loriinwa

But you still incur fees related to giving birth.

Which can be written off as medical expenses.

[jjrose]

Originally Posted by loriinwa

You have the same rights as the individual down the street. Is the individual down the street a man? Can that individual legally for a civil marriage to a man? Can you? So your argument is not that you are not treated equally under the legal requirements to marry, your argument is that you want the requirements changed because of the nature of your relationship, not because you as a person are denied the right to marry on the same basis as every other citizen.

So when the whole "things are equal blacks can marry within their own race just like whites" argument was overruled the court was wrong?

[jjrose]

Originally Posted by loriinwa

Really?

Leviticus 18:22 - Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination.

Again, your failure to put things into context defeats your argument. And your belief that women were not treated as property in prior to Moses is incredibly ignorant.

Look where it comes from? Under ritualistic practices like sacrificing children to Molech.

Follow the context. Sexual sins come earlier, then there is a break into ritualistic practices. I don;t know of any gays having ritualistic sex in temples to Molech, do you?

[ConeyGirl52]

Originally Posted by Petunia 100

It's not unheard of in matters of property. It is completely unheard of in matters of civil rights.

False. The sheds and garages are property. HOA Rules do not carry the weight of our Constitution, yet protection of property is present nonetheless.

A civil right is part of the Bill of Rights, in the US Constitution. The Right to Keep and Bare Arms is in the Second Amendment to the US Constitution, and part of the Bill of Rights as well as all other Civil Rights.

Yes, an armament is property. You dont lose the property simply because the law regarding that Civil Right for that particular weapon changed. The gun or other now-illegal weapon is 'grandfathered in'. You may own it and use it for the rest of your life, but no one else may buy it, and own it and use it.

My comparison of these two Civil Rights both involve property. Why would someone lose their business, which is also property, for not wanting to supply goods to a marriage that according to her religion - which Freedom of Religion is also a Civil Right found in the Fourteenth Amendment?

Sure, she cant discriminate against gay people, but does she have to enter into a contract for a Now-protected gay marriage that goes against her protected Freedom of Religion?

A case in point, involving an interracial marriage in Virginia in 1967 -

The U.S. Supreme Court first applied this standard to marriage in Loving v. Virginia (1967), where it struck down a Virginia law banning interracial marriage. As Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the majority:The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men ...

To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.

So, the marriage is protected. Likewise, I would think the gay marriage is protected.

The stumbling block here is the effect on the Civil Rights of others legally.

She cant legally stop anyone from getting married. She is not accused of stopping anyone from getting married. She did not stop the couple from getting flowers. She did refuse to contract for Wedding Flowers based on her religous beliefs.

So, it is false to say it doesnt apply to Civil Rights. The couple had their Wedding. She did nothing to prevent the nuptials. She refused to participate based on her religous beliefs.

In the case above, the couple did not sue the State of Virginia for an inability to secure the products they wanted from a particular vendor.

They sued for the right to the nuptials themselves.

If the gay couple wanted barbequed pork ribs served at their wedding, would they have the right to demand those pork ribs be provided from a Kosher/Halal vendor? These particular vendors are in the business of providing groceries and/or prepared foods.

Do they have a right to refuse to provide pork products based on their Civil Rights, Freedom of Relgion, covered by the fourteenth amendment?

Its a clash of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.

[Petunia 100]

Originally Posted by loriinwa

But you still incur fees related to giving birth.

Yes. And they are deductible subject to the same rules and limitations as all other medical expenses.

[loriinwa]

Originally Posted by jjrose

Which can be written off as medical expenses.

That doesn't change the fact that companies provide compensation to adoptive parents and the IRS gives credits as well.

Medical expenses cannot be written off dollar for dollar on income tax returns.