If The U.S. Supreme Court ‘Goes Rogue’ ...

a reply to: James1982

WTF??? What does that have to do with this topic???

Did I miss something???? What the hell is a "nefarious performance arts degree" anyway??? How does nefarious even fit within that statement???

What exactly am I missing that makes any of that make sense???

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: ketsuko

No one is forcing participation. Don't want to sell wedding cakes to gay couples or black couples or interracial couples or Muslim couples? Don't get in the wedding cake business. No one is forcing you to be in any kind of business.

I see.

I love it when you lot whine about how business is all only about money and greed, but when business owners actually do try to run their businesses according to their personal values ... it's bad because those values contradict your own. At that point, their businesses should be just about the money and greed.

So, to boil it down ...

If I want to be in a business that provides a service to weddings and there comes a "wedding" that I am asked to participate in that my personal value/belief system says is a mockery of God and what he has decreed, then I must sell out my values for money and greed? I hope those 30 pieces of silver are worth it ...

Most of you are missing the most basic, and fundamental, issue here -- the argument which I am hearing-- via citation of examples which highlight individuals being forced to provide service(s) they do not wish to serve; this is not about marriage, rather, it is blatant homophobia spurred up by a religious front.

The fact is, these individuals are not 'married' when asking a photographer to take pictures of them. These same individuals are not 'married' when asking for a cake to be baked. Clearly this is not an issue about marriage. In fact, I would venture to declare that if a single gay man--or woman--were to go into any of these, previously mentioned, places of business, they would still be denied service; individuals discriminating on other individuals' lifestyle choice(s) conducted either overtly or covertly. What I have just described happens all the time in America. In example, housing communities often do not rent to minorities and will make up excuses, such as, being at capacity; however, such behavior does not make discrimination acceptable or constitutional. In fact, as I see it, the posturing on this issue is religiously fueled, extremist in nature, and entirely out of touch with generational sociological development. A minority in America is attempting to deny public service to American men and women -- some of whom have fought and bled for this country. Despicable.

Let's stop for a moment and consider the law.

Businesses, which provide a public service, are taxed separately from organizations with closed membership policies. As such, if a business owner is declaring themselves a public business, they then must provide said public service to everyone and can be held liable for denying that service on grounds of discrimination. Therefore, hypothetically speaking, if I were to walk into a Mexican bakery and was refused service, because of the color of my skin, that would be discrimination. If I owned a public pool and did not allow African-Americans entry, that would be discrimination. If I wanted to ride, on a public transit system, in a gentrified part of a city, and was not allowed to ride -- that would be discrimination. More so, the 501c3 (Tax-Exempt status which churches take advantage of) specifically prohibits any church of organizing opposition to anything that the government, through public approval, has made legal. Therefore, any church which is taking advantage of the American taxation system, by avoiding taxes and promoting descent on this issue, are, in-fact, in violation of this clause. Furthermore, individuals who attend these churches and then turn to the public to spread said misinformation, are, in fact, violating the very establishment they believe they are fighting for. Although religious freedoms are protected by the constitution, the economic rights, associated with churches, are not divine. A tax exempt status is a privilege which must adhere to specific guidelines-- necessary to avoid flourishing fanaticism.

Our society is constructed, in this manner, in order to sustain our judicial system-- which protects citizens rights who have served time for crime--, minorities and gender. This is not an argument based on what America was founded on, or what it could be -- this is the America we live in today.

The OP, and supporters, promote discrimination within our society. If you are going to operate, financially, in the public markets, then you need to own up to the responsibilities of being an American business owner -- in a country with hundreds of belief systems, different sexes and lifestyles. I hope I am not being to hard on the OP, but realize that they are quite upset with the way things are. You still have a choice. This great country has allowed you the opportunity to voice your concern and rally support for your cause. May I suggest, rather than promoting descent and discrimination, promote exclusivity.

Take the homophobic businesses, limit their interactions to private membership-- exclusivity-- and tax them appropriately. Any 'extremist' church--not just Christian--which wishes to promote ideology that incites dissent on established principals upheld by the American legal system, should be stripped of their tax-exempt status and forced to adhere to the same economic standards as any [other] business promoting exclusivity. Let's see how well free-market capitalism works when fanatic ideology gets in the way of financial law and American constitutional-ism.

a reply to: ketsuko

As I said, there is a financial system in place that essentially nullifies your 'personal' interest as a business owner-- it's the American tax code. If you're going to operate, in America, as a public business, you must provide those services free of discrimination -- otherwise you are breaking the law. You have the right to operate a business 'how' you wish to, but your services cannot be exclusive on the grounds of another individuals lifestyle choices, race or religious belief. This supports my right to get a haircut at a black barber-shop, eat at international delis and participate in public events. Suggesting this behavior is 'ok' is supporting discrimination and entirely un-american. Failing to acknowledge the financial responsibilities, to America, that businesses must adhere to, and obligations to the IRS, essentially will paint you as ignorant and entirely unable to comprehend issues larger than political/religious banter. I have already stated what the solution to this issue was, above, in my post.

a reply to: kavsir

If it were homophobia, the florist who has lost everthing because she did not want to serve the gay wedding would never have served her gay client, ever, in the first place, and yet she served him for years knowing he was gay. Her objection was in being force to participate in the ceremony itself.

a reply to: ketsuko

As I said, there is a financial system in place that essentially nullifies your 'personal' interest as a business owner-- it's the American tax code. If you're going to operate, in America, as a public business, you must provide those services free of discrimination -- otherwise you are breaking the law. You have the right to operate a business 'how' you wish to, but your services cannot be exclusive on the grounds of another individuals lifestyle choices, race or religious belief. This supports my right to get a haircut at a black barber-shop, eat at international delis and participate in public events. Suggesting this behavior is 'ok', equates to supporting discrimination and entirely un-american. Failing to acknowledge the financial responsibilities, to America, that businesses must adhere to, and obligations to the IRS, essentially will paint you as ignorant and entirely unable to comprehend issues larger than political/religious banter. I have already stated what the solution to this issue was, above, in my post. Additionally, I cited tax law which states that churches are breaking the law by spreading such vile propaganda -- yet you missed that point.

I found an article that I really don't know what to make of. If seems that these same conservative christians are accusing the pope of playing in the political field (isn't that what the conservative christians are doing???) when it comes to SOME of the things he's been saying...

www.politico.com...

Hey look! Christians still want state and federal benefits for a religious ceremony!

But they also want to dictate who receieves those benefits.

You know, separation of church and state suggests to me that religious marriage should confer zero state/federal benefit to those married religiously.

If you all still insist on deriving those benefits then check it out, I've got the answer!

Citizens can get bonded at the state/federal level. This bonding comes with all of the state/federal benefits that marriage currently illicitly has. That way, all consenting adults can be bonded.

Then, when people are religious, they can also go get religiously married down at the church.

That way everyone can spend their life with whoever they choose, gay couples will have the same benefits as straight couples, and the religious folks can keep the godless gays out of their churches and out of their marriages.

Everyone wins but the religious gays, but then maybe they'll stop associating with those who despise them.

a reply to: ketsuko

Money isn't the issue. If you are in the business of selling wedding cakes and you don't want to sell them to someone based on their religion, race or sexual orientation, get out of the business. Get into a business that won't put you in that situation. Simples.

a reply to: mOjOm

Hmmm, How about if you allow gay marriages, the following will occur

1. Gay activists will come to your place of business if they know you have Christian beliefs and deliberately ask for service which goes against their religion/beliefs.
!a. You will be fined/sued for "mental rape"...actual event....130,000 dollar settlement.
2. The transgender crowd then assumes the same mantle as the gay crowd and is pushed as a 'victim of birth you need to pay for the sex change'....occurring as we speak...
3.The previously estranged daughter becomes romantically involved with her father. They plan to move to New Jersey where there is no incest laws and marry. They cite the same lines as the gay community..."there's too much hate in the world. What's wrong with love???" What would Jesus do? ( only one....so far)
$ Now instances of gay couples giving their 'adopted child' drugs which suppress hormones and allows the child to 'choose their sex'.

The result is what you see in this legislation. A black-lash. A grassroots, "I've bent over backwards on this issue, given EVERYTHING you've asked for and it's not enough. I'm done with it."

This is only the start, is my prediction....

a reply to: nwtrucker

#1 May happen possibly in some instances because there are always a-holes who want to punish others. This goes for both sides obviously so it's not as though the other side can claim innocence of those same tactics either. However, two wrongs don't make a right and if some militant gays try and abuse the new rules it will effectively start destroying everything they've accomplished so far and I would assume others in their camp will put a stop to it for their own good. In either case those events, should they occur will be few and far between.

As for the other paranoid theories you mention. I have no idea what you're even talking about so you'll have to provide links for those for me to comment. Or I suppose we can just wait it out and if the world begins to burn in hell fire because of all this then I guess I have a "I told you so" coming to me which you can deliver personally.

Have you ever considered that if it wasn't for the ongoing and massive anti-LGBT campaign that has been waged for so long, this whole thing would be a non issue and could have quietly changed and life would simply move on without all the fuss???

a reply to: ketsuko

I believe that because the bible was written by men, it was not god the one that say marriage is between men and women, but men and later the church made that a point.

So until god comes itself and tells us that is not right to have same sex marriages, you know by the horses mouth, we can only speculate.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

Yes Texas have one in Austin, I will not put the link because is actually a page that promotes their services, but if you search for Gay wedding ministers and transgender you will find a few.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: WeAreAWAKE

don't know...
could substitute:
interracial marriage
marriage of a divorce person
black marriages
bar mitzvah
first communion
kiddush
any special corporate event

I mean if some corporation fell out of favor with the area businesses would it be acceptable for you for all the businesses to refuse to cater the retirement party for one of their big wigs? or would you prefer to constrain this to only certain groups of people?
To be honest, I can't see any business not being able to come up with a hundred or so excuses as to why they couldn't do any particular thing asked of them...oh sorry, we are bogged down at the current time, business is really booming this time of year!! Try so and so's.

And what is wrong with that? Everyone is allowed to "protest" for what they don't like or believe in. Why can't a business owner do the same? Hell...corporations are people now right...so they should be able to deny service for any reason they want. If I own a business selling sandwiches and decide I don't want to server long haired men...why shouldn't I be able to make that stupid decision? I built the business, I pay the rent, the bills, etc....if I'm willing to look like a fool and lose business...let me fail. It is the American way.

Dang are my comprehension skills off today or what?

I was thinking the supreme court has gone rogue, again. Like the time it stopped florida from counting presidential election votes between bush and gore...gave the election to bush without florida vote count results.

I don't know if puerto rico votes for president of the us, but I would expect votes from all 50 states in the union to count...

Oh, to go back and count them votes would be like; never having gone into iraq and then leave enough hardware for isis to come threatening...

There was no isis then, and it's now because florida never counted...

when will florida rejoin our union and count the votes?

How many seniors in florida gave their all (paid the devil his due) before retiring to the sunshine state where life is peachy?

I didn't mention anything about any connection that isn't under our noses, while we live in blissful ignorance.

a reply to: loveguy

.........What?!

a reply to: marg6043

I was looking more in interest with Rep Bell. He is one of the biggest anti gay reps in texas, and have been looking for information on him, including how many times he has been married.

a reply to: mOjOm

if you don't know what I'm 'talking' about, then google them. If you intend commenting a subject, it behooves becoming informed about those subjects.

As far as paranoia goes, those that disagree with the stance of gay marriage are 'wrong' , in your view, then all should succumb to your views. Perhaps it's you who should succumb to 'ours'...then this would have been over 'a long time ago....

originally posted by: kavsir
a reply to: loveguy

.........What?!

The election that put 'pea-brained' cheney and company in office did not include all 50 states. Florida did not count. Only 49 states elected him.

Florida is a state in our union, but when it comes to voting for president in the year 2000, Florida was not included thanks for the sc stopping the votes from getting an official count in.

Look where we are today...if only we nip things in the bud as they are occurring---not after everything is all skewed. If it took stopping the gdg to count votes correctly, I'm all for it.

Now as far as being threatened litigation for not wanting to participate in a one-sided marriage, where the kids will grow up in worse conditions than today for single parents...socially acceptable.

My two moms and me- we're man-haters...my two dads and me- we hate women...

See where I'm going?

a reply to: loveguy

"where the kids will grow up in worse conditions than today for single parents"

There is absolutely no scientific evidence which even would hint at your opinion being true.

In fact, Boston University -- and other Ivy League schools -- have spent countless hours researching this topic and conclusively found the opposite to be true -- children raised in gay households are no better (or worse) off than straight households.

American Academy of Pediatrics
pediatrics.aappublications.org... 013/03/18/peds.2013-0377.full.pdf+html

I understand where you are coming from, but the fact is, this debate is so far off the OP. I think I need to bow out.

If logical reasoning and scientific study mean nothing to you, then there is absolutely no need for further discussion.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
if you don't know what I'm 'talking' about, then google them. If you intend commenting a subject, it behooves becoming informed about those subjects.

Actually the way it works is whoever makes the claim is supposed to provide the evidence to support it. Those are your claims so that means you provide supporting evidence.

I'm quite well informed of the subject. I'm not well informed of every crazy conservative conspiracy out there however because there are far too many to keep track of. Most of which are complete BS too.

As far as paranoia goes, those that disagree with the stance of gay marriage are 'wrong' , in your view, then all should succumb to your views. Perhaps it's you who should succumb to 'ours'...then this would have been over 'a long time ago....

If it was just me and my views this wouldn't be an issue now would it?? The fact is that I'm not alone in the views I have just like you're not alone in yours. Whether you want to admit it or not I'm afraid your views are no longer seen to be valid anymore and are being fazed out for the archaic abuse they've caused for far too long. I personally don't care whether you hold on to them or not either. Go right ahead and hold fast to them if you want and watch from your lonely isolated tower of false principles as the world leaves you behind with your ancient belief system as your only companion.