• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Arizona lawmakers pass controversial anti-gay bill[W:451:959]

I've said for some time now that a lot of the emotional impetus behind the gay movement is a kind of attempt to Make Daddy Love Me.
Everybody has an opinion, that does not make reality.

They will eventually start targeting the non-explicitly religiously-oriented activities of Churches, too, it's just inherent in the movement.
Paranoia and fear of what you hate.

As for me :shrug: I think I'd rather go to jail than violate my religious precepts.
You mean bigotry, because there is no other reason to discriminate.

Once upon a time even liberal Democrats (Ted Kennedy comes to mind) cared about individual religious liberty.
We still care just as much about religious freedom, we are just no longer willing to tolerate bigotry and discrimination which has nothing to do with religious freedom.

Now, apparently, not so much.
Yea, just as much.
 
This is obviously in reaction to the case in Colorado where a court ordered a bakery to support a gay wedding against the owners religious beliefs.

His religious beliefs allow him to "support" a wedding for dogs, but not for a gay couple? Pretty sure this is a political conviction and personal bias against gays rather than real religious objections. The religious objection thing is an excuse.

"In concluding that Masterpiece Cakeshop acted unlawfully, a CCRC investigation also showed evidence that Phillips was willing to bake a cake for the "marriage" of a pair of dogs, but not for two women."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/judge-orders-colorado-bakery-cater-sex-weddings/story?id=21136505
 
If I were a baker, I would specialize in gay wedding cakes as that seems to be an untapped market. But that's just me.

But, the government can kiss my ass. I ain't gonna work for anybody I don't want to work for. I ain't the government's goddam slave.

I don't need to have a "religious conviction." If I don't want to work for somebody, I ain't gonna do it.

But I got no problem making gay wedding cake. But if I did, I wouldn't do it.
 
On the subject of the OP I pointed out how CNN misrepresented the law and then pointed out how you excused that with the typical "Oh yeah, what about FOX" line. That is what I have done here.

No, I called you out on you faux outrage / hypocrisy and then backed off reflecting on the notion that the world does not expect real news integrity from Fox so you not getting upset with them is understandable.
 
Actually they should. We even have a whole Amendment to the Constitution thingy where stuff like that is talked about :) Forcing people to support ceremonies that are antithetical to their religious beliefs is a violation of their religious liberty.



Because you are attempting to force us to violate our faith. I don't agree that one has a "right" to a marriage certificate from the state, but I at least understand why those who do believe that their rights are being violated through marriage law are ticked off about it.


Do you think that someone should be able to claim faith and then not serve blacks?

Do you think that someone should be able to claim faith and then not serve interracial couples?

Do you think that someone should be able to claim faith and then not serve Jews?

Do you think that someone should be able to claim faith and then not serve interfaith couples?

Do you think that someone should be able to claim faith and then not serve someone that is divorced?

Do you think that someone should be able to claim faith for their religion and not serve a customer who is disabled and has a service dog?



>>>>
 
His religious beliefs allow him to "support" a wedding for dogs, but not for a gay couple?

:shrug: given that the wedding for dogs was a joke, probably, yes. I wouldn't mind (for example) supporting a fun-time event like that, just as I wouldn't mind supporting a wedding that took place in a theatre production, but for me to support a gay wedding would be making an implicit statement of principles on the question of marriage that I do not agree with.

It is wrong to force people to violate their religious ideals. :shrug: The freedom of conscience is important enough that it is enshrined in our First Amendment - it is one of our founding ideals. You don't get to strip it away simply because you find other peoples' beliefs bizarre or offensive.

Pretty sure this is a political conviction and personal bias against gays rather than real religious objections. The religious objection thing is an excuse.

Sure. And you don't really want equal rights for gays. You just want to punish Christians whom you dislike for the way in which they treated your mother. The "equal rights" thing is just an excuse.


See how dumb it sounds when you don't even give people credit for believing what they say plainly and clearly that they believe?
 
Everybody has an opinion, that does not make reality.

:shrug: well, we are likely going to get a chance to see if I am right or not. If I am wrong, then the movement will not strongly support measures which would force people and institutions to violate their religious faith in order to affirm them... and if I am correct, however, then they will continue to act as people are doing on this thread, and prove fully willing to use state coercion to force others to celebrate me!!!, etc.

Paranoia and fear of what you hate.

:shrug: no hatred here. Or paranoia, for that matter - institutional longevity and self-seeking behavior is pretty much immune to ideology.

You mean bigotry, because there is no other reason to discriminate.

that is incorrect. I mean precisely what I say.

We still care just as much about religious freedom, we are just no longer willing to tolerate bigotry and discrimination which has nothing to do with religious freedom.

So you still care just as much about religious freedom except that you are no longer willing to allow people to exercise that freedom in ways that you find distasteful, or of which you disapprove. Got it. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Do you think that someone should be able to claim faith and then not serve blacks?
Do you think that someone should be able to claim faith and then not serve interracial couples?
Do you think that someone should be able to claim faith and then not serve Jews?
Do you think that someone should be able to claim faith and then not serve interfaith couples?
Do you think that someone should be able to claim faith and then not serve someone that is divorced?
Do you think that someone should be able to claim faith for their religion and not serve a customer who is disabled and has a service dog?
>>>>

:shrug: if you are discussing questions of should, then I think people should have the freedom of contract with whomever they choose. If (for example) a Catholic does not wish to support the wedding of a multiple-divorcee millionaire marrying his latest 24 year old trophy wife :shrug: I think he has the right to do so.
 
:shrug: if you are discussing questions of should, then I think people should have the freedom of contract with whomever they choose. If (for example) a Catholic does not wish to support the wedding of a multiple-divorcee millionaire marrying his latest 24 year old trophy wife :shrug: I think he has the right to do so.

Great way to maintain a civil society - NOT!
 
Great way to maintain a civil society - NOT!

Actually that is the exact way to maintain a civil society. It is the overly-litigious response that turns every issue into one of law and invades all aspects of the public sphere with the State that destroys civil society.
 
but for me to support a gay wedding would be making an implicit statement of principles on the question of marriage that I do not agree with.
How is that even possible?

It is wrong to force people to violate their religious ideals.
Except that is not the case here.

And you don't really want equal rights for gays.
Yes, that is why people oppose discrimination, because they do not want equal rights.
 
So you still care just as much about religious freedom except that you are no longer willing to allow people to exercise that freedom in ways that you find distasteful, or of which you disapprove. Got it.
No you do not get it. I am against allowing the use of the vail of religious freedom as a tool of discrimination. First and foremost it is a lie as such acts have NOTHING to do with one's personal faith. Second, they denigrate the meaning of Christianity, both by perpetuation such a lie and by acting the exact opposite of how Christ did who came into this world for the sinners and openly welcomed them to His table.
 
:shrug: if you are discussing questions of should, then I think people should have the freedom of contract with whomever they choose. If (for example) a Catholic does not wish to support the wedding of a multiple-divorcee millionaire marrying his latest 24 year old trophy wife :shrug: I think he has the right to do so.


Thank you for the honesty, and in a way we are kindred spirits then because I also support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws as applied to private businesses (but they should be maintained for the dealings of government entities).

My fundamental disagreement with the bill is it creates a group that gains "special rights" (you know those thing many claim "the gheys" are asking for) which exempt them from the law and grant them special privileges to discriminate by hiding behind the curtain of religion.

Most claim to be for smaller more limited government, for freedom and liberty - but when asked those pointed questions the answer is commonly (and I paraphrase) - "Oh no, those laws are OK. It is a good thing for the government to prevent discrimination against them." Big government hypocrites. They don't mind big government dictating the lives of individuals as long as it's not their ox being gored.

Your honestly is a breath of fresh air.



>>>>
 
How is that even possible?

I am a Christian.

Except that is not the case here.

In fact it is. One of the points about religious freedom is that you do not get to decide what others' faiths will be or include.

Yes, that is why people oppose discrimination, because they do not want equal rights.

:shrug: perhaps - it could only make a nice slogan.

The point being that just as you think that is is stupid for someone not to take you at face value when you state what you believe and what you are pursuing, it is stupid of you to refuse to do the same for others.
 
Thank you for the honesty, and in a way we are kindred spirits then because I also support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws as applied to private businesses (but they should be maintained for the dealings of government entities).

My fundamental disagreement with the bill is it creates a group that gains "special rights" (you know those thing many claim "the gheys" are asking for) which exempt them from the law and grant them special privileges to discriminate by hiding behind the curtain of religion.

Most claim to be for smaller more limited government, for freedom and liberty - but when asked those pointed questions the answer is commonly (and I paraphrase) - "Oh no, those laws are OK. It is a good thing for the government to prevent discrimination against them." Big government hypocrites. They don't mind big government dictating the lives of individuals as long as it's not their ox being gored.

Your honestly is a breath of fresh air.



>>>>

It's worth noting that under this system I fully expect for there to be plenty of those who would discriminate against me, and am in favor of us all agreeing to forgo the use of government to punish or coerce them when they do so.
 
I am a Christian.
Is that your defense for bigotry? If you are a Christian act like Christ did instead of making empty claims.

In fact it is.
Actually it is not and you are unable to make a case for why or how making a cake for a gay wedding compromises your faith.

One of the points about religious freedom is that you do not get to decide what others' faiths will be or include.
I am not trying to decide what your faith is, you made it clear what you call it. You may also note that there is really no mystery about Christianity is all about, but you are attempting to change that to mean that it includes bigotry. It does not and never did.

The point being that just as you think that is is stupid for someone not to take you at face value when you state what you believe and what you are pursuing, it is stupid of you to refuse to do the same for others.
Yea, but again, you did no claim nor did the bigoted proponents of this law to be followers of some obscure religion that no one really understands, not that that would make it acceptable, but it was the pretense of following Christianity and that is laughable.
 
But this post reeks of bigotry.

Actually it doesn't. The recognition of the right of free association and property regarding goods, services, and labor of the individual is not bigotry because everyone would have those rights, not only a select few.

The Arizona law, which is the topic of this thread, could be viewed as bigotry. It would have provided special rights only to those who claim religion as the foundation for their business decisions. However someone else who makes the exact same decision but doesn't mouth the magic phrase "I did it because of my sincerely held religious belief" is not afforded the same protection that this law applies.

Let me give you a couple of examples. I spent 20-years in the military risking my life multiple times and participated in a war (Desert Shield/Desert Storm) where I have combat flight time for missions flown in theater, I did it because I believe in liberty and freedom and felt a responsibility to serve my country. As you can guess I'm a pretty patriotic guy. However I oppose legislation to make flag burning a criminal act, on the other hand I will bad mouth those who actually burn a flag as low life scum sucking turds. Even though I disagree with their speech, I will defend their right to have it. Same goes for the wacka-doodles at Westboro Baptist Church, I disagree with their message about homosexuals, but I would stand against a law making their speech illegal.

Same applies to this situation. To defend the rights of private business owners to free association and the ability to manage their property, goods, and labor in accordance with the model that they desire does not support bigotry, it supports freedom, liberty, and individual self-determination. I think a florist that turns away an interracial couple BECAUSE they are an interracial couple are unmitigated jerks - but that is their bigotry not mine. I think a photographer that turns away a lesbian couple for a commitment ceremony (Elane Photography, New Mexico) BECAUSE they are a lesbian couple are schmucks - but that is their bigotry not mine.

I opposed this law because it grants "special rights" to discriminate, no such "special right" should be needed - Public Accommodation laws applied to private business should be repeal - IMHO. That is not condoning discrimination, when such discrimination occurs the light of truth should be shined strongly on it and pubic reaction should let the business owners know that conduct is unacceptable through lawful means such as information sources such as newspapers, the internet, web sites, and customer reviews. Some call that harsh, but Focus on the Family had no problem calling for boycotts of companies they considered "gay friendly" and what good for the goose is good for the gander. Ask Sweetcakes by Melissa how well their business did once their discrimination because known to the public. IIRC business dropped by 60% and they closed their storefront.



>>>>
 
Actually they should. We even have a whole Amendment to the Constitution thingy where stuff like that is talked about :) Forcing people to support ceremonies that are antithetical to their religious beliefs is a violation of their religious liberty.



Because you are attempting to force us to violate our faith. I don't agree that one has a "right" to a marriage certificate from the state, but I at least understand why those who do believe that their rights are being violated through marriage law are ticked off about it.

How exactly is your faith violated on one specific sin and not another? Are all other sins less egregious or does your faith allow you to pick and choose degree of sin?

Where in your faith does it say not to bake a cake for a sinner? Where in your faith does it say to shun business from sinners...or some sinners over others?

The use of the calim of faith or religion needs clairification to be held paramount over Constitutional law. I think it is a fantastic scam by some. Cherrypicking is not God's handwork.
 
How exactly is your faith violated on one specific sin and not another? Are all other sins less egregious or does your faith allow you to pick and choose degree of sin?

Where in your faith does it say not to bake a cake for a sinner? Where in your faith does it say to shun business from sinners...or some sinners over others?

It's not the baking of the cake - it's the taking part in, the support of, the ceremony. No one should force you to celebrate that which you morally disapprove of, and no one should force you to violate your beliefs because people can't stand it when you don't celebrate what you morally approve of.

The use of the calim of faith or religion needs clairification to be held paramount over Constitutional law

Freedom of Conscience IS Constitutional Law! It's the First Amendment, for crying out loud.
 
Is that your defense for bigotry? If you are a Christian act like Christ did instead of making empty claims.

Indeed so should we all. But one of Christs' continued sticking points (he talked about it a good bit) is the sanctity of marriage, which He defined as between a man and a woman. You seem to have "agreeing with you" confused with "acting like Christ."

Actually it is not and you are unable to make a case for why or how making a cake for a gay wedding compromises your faith.

In fact it is because it isn't just a cake - it is a wedding cake. It is a part of a celebration of a union of two people. If baker believes that he cannot in good conscience take part in that celebration, well it's not your right to force him or her to do so anyway simply because you disagree.

I am not trying to decide what your faith is, you made it clear what you call it.

In fact you are because you are telling me that it does not, in fact, include what I say that it does. You are attempting to define the borders of others' faith. See, for example, below:

You may also note that there is really no mystery about Christianity is all about, but you are attempting to change that to mean that it includes bigotry. It does not and never did.

- There you are.

Yea, but again, you did no claim nor did the bigoted proponents of this law to be followers of some obscure religion that no one really understands, not that that would make it acceptable, but it was the pretense of following Christianity and that is laughable.

you know, I'm tempted to simply declare that, given the situation surrounding this law, anyone who opposes it is just an anti-Christian bigot, seeking to persecute religion. That wouldn't be true, but it seems ya'll sure do get a lot of emotional mileage out of a pretense of superiority.

Christianity is clear on the nature of marriage, and it is clear on the nature of homosexuality. It is not at all wrong for those who seek to follow it's precepts to feel that they are morally incapable of joining in a celebration that it would disapprove of.
 
And they shouldn't have the right to do make the claim that their religious convictions prevent them from baking a cake and selling it to a gay couple. That is just as ridiculous as making a claim that a person's religious convictions prevent them from baking a cake and selling it to a Jewish couple or a mixed race couple or an older couple. If that is a conflict for their convictions, then they need to find either a new job or a new way of doing business (perhaps referrals only). Businesses open to the public are subject to anti-discrimination laws. And in this case they are treating people differently based on their relative genders.

I do wonder though why people get so pissy about such things. It would have been interesting to see someone turn down my grandparents for a cake because they wanted it to say something like "50 years Chuck and Bill" on it and it was either ordered over the phone or by only my grandfather or perhaps one of us younger ones.

The ones who got 'pissy' about it were the Gays. Instead of calling the owners idiots and going to another bakery, which most people would do when insulted, they got a fit and made themselves look even more petty and ridiculous. I still support Gay rights but, damn, the Gay militants are getting tiresome.
 
It's not the baking of the cake - it's the taking part in, the support of, the ceremony. No one should force you to celebrate that which you morally disapprove of, and no one should force you to violate your beliefs because people can't stand it when you don't celebrate what you morally approve of.



Freedom of Conscience IS Constitutional Law! It's the First Amendment, for crying out loud.

The topic of my discussion was refusal of service on what grounds. Not the act of celebrating.

A baker does not celebrate any of the occasions he bakes a cake for. His business is baking cakes. The question is not celebrating the occasion, it is whether his belief allows him to refuse service to a class of people. A class of people he chose not to serve.

Freedom of Conscience does not need to be listed as a right to uphold, because that right...like the right to self defense and marriage pre-dates the US Constitution.

You have freedom to believe as you wish. The question is whether your belief is pararmount over other's rights. No right is sacroscant over another just as no religion is sacrocant over another.

If your claim is that your faith is in your head[Freedom of Conscience] and that should be sufficient to act as you will, that might be sufficient to your God[whatever that may be], but I don't think that is sufficient justification in a court of law in the US.

If someone comes before the court with a claim of "religious exemption", then they should - at least- have something written down so that all can all follow along with the defense. To tell the judge..."it's all in my head Judge"...I don't think will go over very well in court.
 
The topic of my discussion was refusal of service on what grounds. Not the act of celebrating.

In this case, the service being provided is part of a celebration. If a Baker does not wish to take part in a gay wedding via his or her work, that is his or her right.

A baker does not celebrate any of the occasions he bakes a cake for. His business is baking cakes. The question is not celebrating the occasion, it is whether his belief allows him to refuse service to a class of people. A class of people he chose not to serve.

No - it is for an event.

Freedom of Conscience does not need to be listed as a right to uphold, because that right...like the right to self defense and marriage pre-dates the US Constitution.

The Right of Religious Conscience does indeed pre-date the Constitution, but it is there that it was firsts enshrined into written law.

You have freedom to believe as you wish. The question is whether your belief is pararmount over other's rights.

Rights are negative, not positive in nature. You do not have a right to force other people to support your wedding. You do not have a right to force other people to bake a cake for you. You do not have a right to force other people to let you use their space. You do not have a right to other people's stuff or their labor.

No right is sacroscant over another just as no religion is sacrocant over another.

On the contrary - if any of our rights is more Sacrosanct, it is religious freedom; which played not a little role in the founding of this country.

If your claim is that your faith is in your head[Freedom of Conscience] and that should be sufficient to act as you will, that might be sufficient to your God[whatever that may be], but I don't think that is sufficient justification in a court of law in the US.

Sure. and if you think you should get married then that should be sufficient to act as you will, and let me act as I will.

If someone comes before the court with a claim of "religious exemption", then they should - at least- have something written down so that all can all follow along with the defense. To tell the judge..."it's all in my head Judge"...I don't think will go over very well in court.

Christianity is pretty clear on the nature of marriage and the nature of homosexuality. That being said, we live in a country where each individual is free to define their own faith, and we make pretty great allowance for those who wish to follow it - which is why we allow people to opt out of the Draft, or Social Security on that basis.
 
In this case, the service being provided is part of a celebration. If a Baker does not wish to take part in a gay wedding via his or her work, that is his or her right.

No - it is for an event.

The Right of Religious Conscience does indeed pre-date the Constitution, but it is there that it was firsts enshrined into written law.
Rights are negative, not positive in nature. You do not have a right to force other people to support your wedding. You do not have a right to force other people to bake a cake for you. You do not have a right to force other people to let you use their space. You do not have a right to other people's stuff or their labor.

This passage above all the others is indicative of your undertanding of rights.

On the contrary - if any of our rights is more Sacrosanct, it is religious freedom; which played not a little role in the founding of this country.



Sure. and if you think you should get married then that should be sufficient to act as you will, and let me act as I will.

Christianity is pretty clear on the nature of marriage and the nature of homosexuality. That being said, we live in a country where each individual is free to define their own faith, and we make pretty great allowance for those who wish to follow it - which is why we allow people to opt out of the Draft, or Social Security on that basis.

If I were to have ten Christian ministers, with churches and congergations in the community, to testify in court on my behalf that Christianity does not foster or advocate disrimination against anyone for any reason...would that help or hurt my case against religious dicrimination?

There is [and will be shown by the US Supreme court that there is] a difference in of one's religious convitions[which are protected] and religious belief meant to discriminate[which are not protected].
 
Back
Top Bottom