U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-02-2016, 02:59 PM
 
Location: Northeastern US
18,125 posts, read 11,940,953 times
Reputation: 8903

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash View Post
I'm going to say I disagree with this ruling . This is a Christian site that is basically a club for Christian to find other like minded Christians on . If their beliefs are such that they think it wrong to facilitate gay encounters, then they should be allowed this . If other Christians want to create sites that cater to gay people also they would be free to do so.
You may already know that eHarmony started out this way and eventually opened up to the LGBTQ community. They were originally marketed to Christians, and a judge forced them to open things up in 2008.

One of the cofounders now says this damaged his company, although the reason he gives is mainly that he had to hire security guards to make his employees safe against enraged conservative Christians!

These are for-profit businesses who have to cater to the public according the rules everyone else plays by.

If a church or denomination opened a non-profit dating service that was limited to members of their own group, then it would be a different story. I would suppose they could even charge some sort of fee for the service but would have to be very careful to limit participation to members and to control things like sexual orientation via the membership requirements. I'm not a lawyer, but I believe I'm substantially correct. Perhaps someone with actual expertise can verify that.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-02-2016, 03:20 PM
 
4,851 posts, read 2,133,003 times
Reputation: 1586
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
You may already know that eHarmony started out this way and eventually opened up to the LGBTQ community. They were originally marketed to Christians, and a judge forced them to open things up in 2008.

One of the cofounders now says this damaged his company, although the reason he gives is mainly that he had to hire security guards to make his employees safe against enraged conservative Christians!

These are for-profit businesses who have to cater to the public according the rules everyone else plays by.

If a church or denomination opened a non-profit dating service that was limited to members of their own group, then it would be a different story. I would suppose they could even charge some sort of fee for the service but would have to be very careful to limit participation to members and to control things like sexual orientation via the membership requirements. I'm not a lawyer, but I believe I'm substantially correct. Perhaps someone with actual expertise can verify that.


I don't argue the legal aspects of this, I simply point out that this has nothing to do with these guys being unable to find a dating service for gays and is nothing more than vindictiveness on their part . I understand the motivation for the vindictiveness , but is does not make this some noble act on their part . They are a couple of militant guys trolling around for a fight until they found one .

And yes, the sites are for profit . But answer my baker question . Can a business be forced to provide a service they previously did not because not doing so offends some recognized minority ?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2016, 04:06 PM
 
Location: S. Wales.
49,763 posts, read 18,505,503 times
Reputation: 5838
I don't think so, but they can be obliged to provide a service for all without discrimination in accordance with the law. It becomes a matter of concern when another minority starts trying to wave the law away on the grounds that the result offends them.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2016, 04:15 PM
 
Location: Northeastern US
18,125 posts, read 11,940,953 times
Reputation: 8903
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash View Post
I don't argue the legal aspects of this, I simply point out that this has nothing to do with these guys being unable to find a dating service for gays and is nothing more than vindictiveness on their part . I understand the motivation for the vindictiveness , but is does not make this some noble act on their part . They are a couple of militant guys trolling around for a fight until they found one.
I don't know that activists typically see their activism as "vindictive" or even putative nor is it meant that way. In this case I would suppose they see themselves as sending messages to the business community that they must obey the law. If I, as a heterosexual, could use the service, then there is really no excuse why they, as homosexuals, should be unable to.

I don't know how the law would be cleanly enforced or interpreted if defendants could make the argument that there are x competitors in the market that these plaintiffs could go to. The whole point of equality before the law is that if there is no burden on a heterosexual to hunt around for a dating service that will cater to their desire for an opposite sex relationship, then a homosexual shouldn't be required to hunt around for someone who will cater to their sexual orientation either.

Same thing with the perennial cake-baking argument. If I don't have to shop around for a cake baker who will bake me a cake, why should anyone? The idea is for everyone to have equal access, not just "some" access that is arbitrarily considered "enough".
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2016, 04:36 PM
 
4,851 posts, read 2,133,003 times
Reputation: 1586
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
I don't know that activists typically see their activism as "vindictive" or even putative nor is it meant that way. In this case I would suppose they see themselves as sending messages to the business community that they must obey the law. If I, as a heterosexual, could use the service, then there is really no excuse why they, as homosexuals, should be unable to.
Why should a dating service be required to offer specific service to gays if they don't provide it ? Lots of businesses don't provide certain services . Vegetarian restaurants don't provide meat meals to omnivores who don't find what they like on the menu . I recently ate at an Indian restaurant that didn't provide beef or pork . In my business there are certain things I don't provide even though they technically are part of my trade . This dating site didn't have the option for men to select what kind of men they wanted to meet . Guess what ? It wasn't a gay dating site . Why not visit the type of business that caters to your wants instead of forcing businesses to alter their business model to serve you , which is what happened here .

Quote:

I don't know how the law would be cleanly enforced or interpreted if defendants could make the argument that there are x competitors in the market that these plaintiffs could go to. The whole point of equality before the law is that if there is no burden on a heterosexual to hunt around for a dating service that will cater to their desire for an opposite sex relationship, then a homosexual shouldn't be required to hunt around for someone who will cater to their sexual orientation either.
This is just so much nonsense . The concept of equality does not address creating the same number of shopping opportunities for gays as for heteros , or for blacks as whites have . It ensures that the gay guy wanting to buy the product of an establishment , say a cake, can't be refused buying what the baker already produces simply because he is gay and the baker doesn't like serving gays . It doesn't ensure that a store must carry goods that appeal to blacks so they don't have to search for them . If Walmart doesn't carry African specific hair care goods, for example , can blacks sue to make them because they carry types whites use , but not types many blacks use ? Is it prejudice to refuse to bother with searching for and stocking a speciality item that not many customers will buy due to numbers ?


Quote:

Same thing with the perennial cake-baking argument. If I don't have to shop around for a cake baker who will bake me a cake, why should anyone? The idea is for everyone to have equal access, not just "some" access that is arbitrarily considered "enough".
Let's address my example of the baker and the Muslim . If the baker only bakes certain style baked goods and doesn't advertise on demand baking but chooses his products himself ,can the Muslim demand the baker bake him Muslim pastries because the baker has a selection of Christian and Jewish pastries to cater to some niches he has identified and targeted ?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2016, 05:02 PM
 
Location: Northeastern US
18,125 posts, read 11,940,953 times
Reputation: 8903
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash View Post
Let's address my example of the baker and the Muslim . If the baker only bakes certain style baked goods and doesn't advertise on demand baking but chooses his products himself ,can the Muslim demand the baker bake him Muslim pastries because the baker has a selection of Christian and Jewish pastries to cater to some niches he has identified and targeted ?
I would think if there's a fixed menu or set products on offer there is nothing wrong with failing to carry every possible niche product.

The problem comes in when you are offering a service. If a baker DOES do on demand baking then refusing to accommodate someone based on ideology is a problem. And dating services fall under that.

I guess you are arguing that a baker can offer even custom baking but not for weddings and that is fine so long as he absolutely doesn't do weddings for all comers, so far as I know.

If I were to offer a dating service and design and configure the service such that gays can't use it or aren't allowed to use it, I don't see how that can be legal. Particularly given that since 2009, LGBTQ persons have been members of a protected class and it's openly being done for ideological reasons.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2016, 05:12 PM
 
4,851 posts, read 2,133,003 times
Reputation: 1586
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
I would think if there's a fixed menu or set products on offer there is nothing wrong with failing to carry every possible niche product.

The problem comes in when you are offering a service. If a baker DOES do on demand baking then refusing to accommodate someone based on ideology is a problem. And dating services fall under that.

I guess you are arguing that a baker can offer even custom baking but not for weddings and that is fine so long as he absolutely doesn't do weddings for all comers, so far as I know.

If I were to offer a dating service and design and configure the service such that gays can't use it or aren't allowed to use it, I don't see how that can be legal. Particularly given that since 2009, LGBTQ persons have been members of a protected class and it's openly being done for ideological reasons.


There was a fixed set of services offered on the dating service . Men looking for women, women looking for men . It chose not to cater to homosexuals , and you are insisting it is illegal for them to choose NOT to offer this service . How then is it OK for a baker who bakes goods for Christians and Jews to NOT choose to create and bake them for Muslims ? Can a department store refuse to carry certain goods that blacks like if some blacks request they do ,or can blacks sue if the store refuses to invest the time and money to cater to them ? Where does this end ?

This is militant activism that simply goes around creating trouble .

I likely owe an apology to folks like Jeff and Viz . I think I declared once that it would never come to the point gays would try to force churches to marry gays . I see now I was probably wrong. They likely will, and with the blessing and cheering of many liberals .

This is not about justice for homosexuals , it is about sticking it to the stupid Christians .
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2016, 05:19 PM
 
Location: Tennessee
10,688 posts, read 7,139,814 times
Reputation: 4671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio View Post
Yes. Our courts are full of judges that have no clue what the Constituion actually says.

If the only point is to cause issues for others it's needless.
Actually the big problem right now is to get any judges at all approved by an obstructionist Republican majority. There is currently one justice awaiting Senate action for the Supreme Court, seven for court of appeals, and 43 for District Courts--some awaiting action since as far back as February 2015. So NOTHING is getting done in far too may places--good or bad depending on one's point of view.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio View Post
Having said that, the Bill of Rights actually says that we have the right to bear arms. It's silent regarding gay people.
Since 1803, and Marbury vs Madison, the U.S. Supreme Court has been in a position to declare what is constitutional. If you don't like it then get out of the nation that has had that solid tradition for over 200 years. In recent years it has most actively supported businesses against individuals reflecting what has become almost mandatory that all people and businesses are equal, but businesses are more equal than persons (to paraphrase George Orwell). Big money even influences court decisions.

Even bearing arms must have some limitations, otherwise all of us could have small nukes so the "government can't take away our 'rights.'" Those who believe in a "functionalist" interpretation of the second Amendment would have people owning tanks, machine guns, grenades, rocket launchers, etc. And both the courts and Congress have been the ones that have limited such, thank God. And don't think there isn't an attempt to bring such weapons of idiocy into play. In 2015 a Court of Appeals determined it is not lawful to own a machine gun.
Quote:
Jay Hollis (Texas) sought permission to convert his AR-15, a popular semi-automatic firearm, into an M16 — an automatic firearm that is banned under federal law, except for official use or lawfully obtained pre-1986 models.

After he was rejected, Hollis mounted a constitutional challenge to the Gun Control Act of 1968 — which Congress amended in 1986 to make it illegal to possess or transfer newly manufactured machine guns. Among other things, he argued that an “M-16 is the quintessential militia-styled arm for the modern day.”

In a unanimous ruling issued Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit rejected Hollis’ arguments, categorically noting that “machine guns are not protected arms under the Second Amendment.”

The court explained that the leading Supreme Court precedent on the right to keep and bear arms, 2008’s District of Columbia v. Heller, only protected individual handgun possession for “defense of hearth and home.”

“Today ... ordinary military weaponry is far more advanced than the weapons typically found at home and used for (self)-defense,” the court said, adding that machine guns are “dangerous and unusual,” and nothing like what militias might have used at the founding of the republic.
Machine Guns Are Not Protected By The Second Amendment, Appeals Court Rules

You need to see the last words Jesus spoke to His disciples before being led away to His crucifixion.

Quote:
When those who were around Jesus saw what was about to take place, they asked, “Lord, should we attack with our swords?” Then one of them struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear. But Jesus said, “No more of this!” So he touched the wounded man’s ear and healed him.
Luke 22:49-51


The important thing to note---is that nobody waited for Jesus' answer before attacking the high priest's servant.


That's like you, Vizio, always deciding YOU know what Jesus said--except you don't ever take the time to reflect on what it truly means. Your "patriotism" and your love of God have become so intertwined that you cannot see God as above all patriotism and partisanship.


What you have developed in your mind---is a tribal god, not the God of the universe.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2016, 08:32 PM
 
Location: Northeastern US
18,125 posts, read 11,940,953 times
Reputation: 8903
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallflash View Post
I likely owe an apology to folks like Jeff and Viz . I think I declared once that it would never come to the point gays would try to force churches to marry gays . I see now I was probably wrong. They likely will, and with the blessing and cheering of many liberals.

This is not about justice for homosexuals , it is about sticking it to the stupid Christians.
Churches are not businesses. They are private clubs.

A good comparison is political parties. Trump claims that it would be "illegal" for the delegates at the Republican convention to elect any candidate other than him. Actually, it's not illegal because as a private organization the RNC has wide latitude to set whatever rules it wants. While it would be illegal to overturn the results of the general election, the results of the primaries are entirely up to the party. Same goes for the Dems; the superdelegate system may be undemocratic, but it's entirely legal and the rules were known in advance.

The consequences of Trump OR Clinton being shown the door, even by bound delgates, are political, not legal.

It's the same with churches. It is perfectly legal to refuse to marry gays, to refuse to hire gays as staff, to refuse to admit gays to membership. That doesn't mean there are no consequences. The consequences just aren't legal ones. They are marginalization by the rest of society which is rightly disgusted by discrimination and bigotry being shown by a group that claims to follow a higher moral code than society itself. And by the hypocrisy inherent in that.

The reason this hasn't happened until recently is that society was generally just as infected with the same bigotry. Society is now moving on. Churches don't have to; they're perfectly welcome to be on the wrong side of history. They won't be persecuted for that, but they will be disrespected for it. I'm sure they can handle it ;-)
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2016, 09:06 PM
 
4,851 posts, read 2,133,003 times
Reputation: 1586
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
Churches are not businesses. They are private clubs.

A good comparison is political parties. Trump claims that it would be "illegal" for the delegates at the Republican convention to elect any candidate other than him. Actually, it's not illegal because as a private organization the RNC has wide latitude to set whatever rules it wants. While it would be illegal to overturn the results of the general election, the results of the primaries are entirely up to the party. Same goes for the Dems; the superdelegate system may be undemocratic, but it's entirely legal and the rules were known in advance.

The consequences of Trump OR Clinton being shown the door, even by bound delgates, are political, not legal.

It's the same with churches. It is perfectly legal to refuse to marry gays, to refuse to hire gays as staff, to refuse to admit gays to membership. That doesn't mean there are no consequences. The consequences just aren't legal ones. They are marginalization by the rest of society which is rightly disgusted by discrimination and bigotry being shown by a group that claims to follow a higher moral code than society itself. And by the hypocrisy inherent in that.

The reason this hasn't happened until recently is that society was generally just as infected with the same bigotry. Society is now moving on. Churches don't have to; they're perfectly welcome to be on the wrong side of history. They won't be persecuted for that, but they will be disrespected for it. I'm sure they can handle it ;-)


The dating site was essentially a private membership club. Never mind that there are gay dating sites out there that no doubt cater exclusively to gays, this one site didn't have a setup for gay dating , so it had to be attacked and dealt with .

I don't say the courts will rule against the churches , but I do now expect that an attempt will be made to try this, possibly using their tax exempt status as a weapon of compliance .

Let's just not pretend this is about justice for gays . It's about getting even .
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote 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.


Reply
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 > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:11 AM.

© 2005-2023, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top