Page 5 of 22 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 213

Thread: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win[W:48]

  1. #41
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

    Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

    Quote Originally Posted by vesper View Post
    I believe the business owner has 1st Amendment rights that protect his moral conscience. If he believes providing a service for A. B. or C violates that conscience, he has a right to deny such service. And the person seeking such a service needs to move on to find one who will accommodate them. Period. There is legislation currently pending to protect the 1st Amendment rights of All not just a few.

    Does this legislation provide a religious exemption for serving blacks, gays, Muslims, and the disabled - or does it provide only for discrimination against homosexuals?

    Could we read this "pending legislation" for everyone in the country (you did say "All") with a link?



    >>>>

  2. #42
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

    Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

    Quote Originally Posted by polgara View Post
    I believe I grasp what you posted, but I have a question. Do you mean that an officiating minister would somehow validate the civil union license issued by the State, if a couple wanted a "marriage license?" Would he have a form that stated on such-and-such a date, a religious ceremony was held in a church that wedded a man and a woman in the traditional sense? I think that would be a good idea for everyone, as you pointed out. There are a lot of jobs that depend upon weddings for their livelihood which would be lost otherwise. Under your plan, everyone would be legally "married" in the eyes of the government, but only those that held a wedding ceremony would consider themselves married rather than just "civil unioned?" There shouldn't be any stigma attached, since only the government-issued paper would be valid? hmmm...

    Greetings, Vesper.

    If such Church documents (in essence a religious "marriage license"), you realize of course that Churches that choose to allow same-sex marriage would be issuing the same documents to validate teh religious marriage of same-sex couples performed by that religious organization.

    In reality nothing would change. Different-sex and same-sex couples would both get Civil Union Licenses from the government and have full and equal access to the rights, responsibilities, and benefits of Civil Marr.... - ah - Unions. Then they have a minister that will validate their Religious Marriage.



    >>>>

  3. #43
    Sage

    vesper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,850

    Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    Does this legislation provide a religious exemption for serving blacks, gays, Muslims, and the disabled - or does it provide only for discrimination against homosexuals?

    Could we read this "pending legislation" for everyone in the country (you did say "All") with a link?



    >>>>
    I'm sure it is easily found by doing a seach on House bills passed. It doesn't matter what color you are, what faith you hold or if you walk on one leg or have none. If what a person requests of a business owner violates his moral conscience he should have a right to deny that service. A printer who finds printing flyers for the next upcoming meeting of NAMBLA members to be offensive has a right to deny them that service. If a man of faith is faced with printing material that depicts his God as some monster or heinous joke, he has a right to deny his services to that person. If a Jewish business owner of a catering service was hired to prepare kosher dishes for an event and found out he would have to share the kitchen with those preparing shrimp and pulled pork, he has a right to deny his services. If a Muslim business owner was asked to provide services to a group that didn't want his female workers showing up in traditional headdress, has a right to deny that person his services. If a person of faith believes the union of homosexuals to be a sin, has a right to deny any service that is part of that union.

  4. #44
    Sage

    vesper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,850

    Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

    Quote Originally Posted by polgara View Post
    I believe I grasp what you posted, but I have a question. Do you mean that an officiating minister would somehow validate the civil union license issued by the State, if a couple wanted a "marriage license?" Would he have a form that stated on such-and-such a date, a religious ceremony was held in a church that wedded a man and a woman in the traditional sense? I think that would be a good idea for everyone, as you pointed out. There are a lot of jobs that depend upon weddings for their livelihood which would be lost otherwise. Under your plan, everyone would be legally "married" in the eyes of the government, but only those that held a wedding ceremony would consider themselves married rather than just "civil unioned?" There shouldn't be any stigma attached, since only the government-issued paper would be valid? hmmm...

    Greetings, Vesper.
    Basically....before marriage licences, the priest, minister, preacher, filled out the document often in a Bible stating that the couple were wed in Holy Matrimony which was recognized by all states.

  5. #45
    Sage
    polgara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,337

    Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

    [QUOTE=WorldWatcher;1063297743]If such Church documents (in essence a religious "marriage license"), you realize of course that Churches that choose to allow same-sex marriage would be issuing the same documents to validate teh religious marriage of same-sex couples performed by that religious organization.

    In reality nothing would change. Different-sex and same-sex couples would both get Civil Union Licenses from the government and have full and equal access to the rights, responsibilities, and benefits of Civil Marr.... - ah - Unions. Then they have a minister that will validate their Religious Marriage.

    That seems to be fair to me. The civil union license would be the "official" paper, and no couple could be joined without it - no matter what their sex orientation is - and the marriage license could go in a scrapbook with their wedding pictures, or framed and hung on a wall if they liked. Those that don't care about anything but their legal rights might not care about a marriage license, per se, since the civil union paper would certify that they are together by law. It shouldn't upset the separation of church and state thing, since the church part would be optional. It could work, since it seems that only young people today care mostly about the "wedding" part, and not the "getting along afterwards" part, where a few arguments lead to a divorce.

    Greetings, WorldWatcher. :2wave

  6. #46
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

    Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

    Quote Originally Posted by vesper View Post
    I'm sure it is easily found by doing a seach on House bills passed.
    So you have nothing.


    Quote Originally Posted by vesper View Post
    It doesn't matter what color you are, what faith you hold or if you walk on one leg or have none. If what a person requests of a business owner violates his moral conscience he should have a right to deny that service.
    I agree. The difference is that I can separate laws as they are and what I think they should be.

    Quote Originally Posted by vesper View Post
    A printer who finds printing flyers for the next upcoming meeting of NAMBLA members to be offensive has a right to deny them that service.
    Under the law he can refuse the commission as NAMBLA is not covered under Public Accommodation laws.

    Quote Originally Posted by vesper View Post
    If a man of faith is faced with printing material that depicts his God as some monster or heinous joke, he has a right to deny his services to that person.
    He already can if he denies all such commissions.

    Quote Originally Posted by vesper View Post
    If a Jewish business owner of a catering service was hired to prepare kosher dishes for an event and found out he would have to share the kitchen with those preparing shrimp and pulled pork, he has a right to deny his services.
    He already can if he denies all such commissions to operate in non-kosher kitchens.

    Quote Originally Posted by vesper View Post
    If a Muslim business owner was asked to provide services to a group that didn't want his female workers showing up in traditional headdress, has a right to deny that person his services.
    He already can if he denies all such commissions to operate based on a requirement this his female servers must wear traditional headdress.

    Quote Originally Posted by vesper View Post
    If a person of faith believes the union of homosexuals to be a sin, has a right to deny any service that is part of that union.
    Not in 29 states, he cannot discriminate in providing full and equal goods and services to customers based on the sexual orientation of the customer.

    The business owner can choose to not provide services to weddings, not a problem.

    (Again, that is what the law is [in those states], not what I think the law should be. Whether the business owner is a "person of faith" should be irrelevant. IMHO, a business owner should be able to refuse service for any reasons to any customer it wouldn't have to be based on "faith".)


    ******************************

    You appear to not understand how Public Accommodations laws work. No business is required to provide goods or services they do not normally supply or change how their business normally functions. Public Accommodation laws only require that a business provide the same goods and services and cannot deny the customer based on race, ethnicity, national origin and in some state sex, sexual orientation, marital status, veterans status, etc.



    >>>>

  7. #47
    Sage

    vesper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,850

    Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

    You know this is an afterthought, but recently in the polls there is a real possibility that true blue Oregon may be turning purple. After the fiasco over Obamacare in that state Republicans have been really gaining ground. I know some may find this hard to believe but its places like Portland and vicinity and a couple of heavily populated college towns that tend to make Oregon so blue. The rest of the state especially to the South around Medford aren't going to be happy at all with this new ruling by this federal judge and the possibility of ole Oregon electing a Republican Senator this mid-term has probably become more of a reality than ever.

  8. #48
    Sage

    vesper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    13,850

    Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    So you have nothing.




    I agree. The difference is that I can separate laws as they are and what I think they should be.



    Under the law he can refuse the commission as NAMBLA is not covered under Public Accommodation laws.



    He already can if he denies all such commissions.



    He already can if he denies all such commissions to operate in non-kosher kitchens.



    He already can if he denies all such commissions to operate based on a requirement this his female servers must wear traditional headdress.



    Not in 29 states, he cannot discriminate in providing full and equal goods and services to customers based on the sexual orientation of the customer.

    The business owner can choose to not provide services to weddings, not a problem.

    (Again, that is what the law is [in those states], not what I think the law should be. Whether the business owner is a "person of faith" should be irrelevant. IMHO, a business owner should be able to refuse service for any reasons to any customer it wouldn't have to be based on "faith".)


    ******************************

    You appear to not understand how Public Accommodations laws work. No business is required to provide goods or services they do not normally supply or change how their business normally functions. Public Accommodation laws only require that a business provide the same goods and services and cannot deny the customer based on race, ethnicity, national origin and in some state sex, sexual orientation, marital status, veterans status, etc.



    >>>>
    It's not that I have nothing I refuse to do your leg work for you. If you want to know what the bill states go look it up yourself;

    Bull****, on your take on Accommodation laws. People are drug into court constantly over people not being tolerant of their beliefs/moral conscience. When accommodation laws trump the 1st Amendment rights of others, then the Accommodation laws need to be revisited or another law put into place that protects everyone.

  9. #49
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Gina's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    31,867

    Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

    Moderator's Warning:
    Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win[W:48]The personal comments and baiting need to stop.
    I don't attack my constituents. Bob is my constituent now.
    This is the important stuff. We canít get lost in discrimination. We canít get lost in B.S. We canít get lost tearing each other down. I want to make a point here that no matter what you look like, where you come from, how you worship, who you love, how you identify, and yeah, how you run, that if you have good public policy ideas, if you are well qualified for office, bring those ideas to the table, because this is your America, too. This is our commonwealth of Virginia, too.
    Danica Roem - The nation's first openly transgender person elected to serve in a U.S. state legislature.

  10. #50
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

    Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

    Quote Originally Posted by vesper View Post
    It's not that I have nothing I refuse to do your leg work for you. If you want to know what the bill states go look it up yourself;
    You were the one the brought up "pending" legislation.

    It's not my job to support your claims.


    Quote Originally Posted by vesper View Post
    Bull****, on your take on Accommodation laws. People are drug into court constantly over people not being tolerant of their beliefs/moral conscience. When accommodation laws trump the 1st Amendment rights of others, then the Accommodation laws need to be revisited or another law put into place that protects everyone.
    False.

    People have been found in violation of State Public Accommodation laws for violating the law by denying the full and equal goods and services they normally provide based on the customers race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. They aren't "drug into court" for their beliefs, they are found in violation of the law for their actions.

    As stated before I encourage the repeal of Public Accommodation laws so that business owners can refuse service to customers based on any reason they choose which includes race, religion, sex, age, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and national origin. Such a repeal means that such decision need not be based on "religion", the return rights of property and association back to the owner.

    Do you agree with that or does your continued reference to the 1st Amendment mean that you think business should only be able to discriminate if they hide behind a religious claim? (One must assume that since you reference "beliefs/moral conscience" you are refering to the Free Exercise of Religion Clause.) If so does that claim only apply to the ghey's or can a religious claim be made to justify discrimination against anyone?


    (Time for bed, gotta work tomorrow so I'll look for an answer in the morning.)


    >>>>>

Page 5 of 22 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •