• 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!

Judge throws out Pennsylvania's ban on gay marriage

WorldWatcher said:
Ummmm - did you miss the part were I said instead of adding more laws and granting "special rights", that they should be repealed?


>>>>
Click to expand...

No need, considering there are no anti-or pro-gay marriage laws within the fed, except referendums/resolutions and with the exception of prop8 - which is a direct democracy law, passed by the people and for the people.....
 
roguenuke said:
If you can't handle the duties of the job, find a different job. It is that simple.

I expect people to do their job or find a job they can do without violating their personal conscience. You go into business, then you are agreeing to the rules that govern business in that state. And that includes future rules that may come up. This is why businesses are some of the main people we see lobbying for and against certain laws. They are affected by those laws. But everyone is affected when businesses refuse to do business with the entire public based on claimed moral objections.
Click to expand...

Yeah another stellar post depicting the trampling of the moral conscience. All those people of faith need not leave their homes with said faith to work in the public square! Those damn people of faith and a moral conscience have no business dragging that faith into the public square. Let them leave it at home or only pull it out on Saturday's or Sunday's in their little places of worship.......gottcha
 
vesper said:
Sure I could give you examples of all that I mentioned. I'll work on it tomorrow. The recent cases of the bakers, photographers, florists etc any services pertaining to weddings in some instances through the order of the court did give fines, and with the warning if they did not comply with accommodation laws faced jail time. In any event those I have been following ended up either not doing wedding ceremonies losing major revenue or closed up shop all together. But yeah, I'll give you examples.
Click to expand...

Uh huh. I'll believe it when I see it. None of those cases would have led to jail time. Those are all instances of violations of state "antidiscrimination" laws. You have let some loons get into your head.
 
CriticalThought said:
Uh huh. I'll believe it when I see it. None of those cases would have led to jail time. Those are all instances of violations of state "antidiscrimination" laws. You have let some loons get into your head.
Click to expand...

Well thank you so much for your claim that I have let loons into my head. I read the findings of the judges. The people were fined and were warned with threat of jail time in some instances. You people who have advocated for same sex marriage have not a clue what you have done in regard to people in this country of faith and moral conscience and your accommodation laws in the name of discrimination. You all have become the discriminators.
 
tres borrachos said:
How does 2 Emperors marrying men (outside of the normal societal acceptance) make him "ignorant"? Emperor Caligula made his horse a Senator, but that doesn't mean that society accepted horses as having the same rights as humans. He made that decision as an Emperor.

In which societies was SSM legal, commonplace, and accepted as the norm?
Click to expand...

Indian culture is one. I'd have to research for more.
 
vesper said:
Yeah another stellar post depicting the trampling of the moral conscience. All those people of faith need not leave their homes with said faith to work in the public square! Those damn people of faith and a moral conscience have no business dragging that faith into the public square. Let them leave it at home or only pull it out on Saturday's or Sunday's in their little places of worship.......gottcha
Click to expand...

Hyperbole for the win!
 
Kal'Stang said:
Hyperbole for the win!
Click to expand...

No it is not hyperbole. People are being made to make decisions everyday whether they violate their moral conscience to keep their job or be at peace with their conscience and lose their job. It shouldn't be that way.
 
vesper said:
No it is not hyperbole. People are being made to make decisions everyday whether they violate their moral conscience to keep their job or be at peace with their conscience and lose their job. It shouldn't be that way.
Click to expand...

We call that the First Amendment, however progressives love to degrade the idea..

The progressives would burn it if they could.
 
vesper said:
Sure I could give you examples of all that I mentioned. I'll work on it tomorrow. The recent cases of the bakers, photographers, florists etc any services pertaining to weddings in some instances through the order of the court did give fines, and with the warning if they did not comply with accommodation laws faced jail time. In any event those I have been following ended up either not doing wedding ceremonies losing major revenue or closed up shop all together. But yeah, I'll give you examples.
Click to expand...

all examples of morons choosing to break the law
nobody forced them to break the law they were stupid and choose too, they thought laws and rights didnt apply to them and they found out they were wrong

so again let us know when you have FACTUAL examples of people being FORCED to break the law lol
 
vesper said:
Yeah another stellar post depicting the trampling of the moral conscience. All those people of faith need not leave their homes with said faith to work in the public square! Those damn people of faith and a moral conscience have no business dragging that faith into the public square. Let them leave it at home or only pull it out on Saturday's or Sunday's in their little places of worship.......gottcha
Click to expand...

LMAO i love the fantasy strawman and hyperbole you make up. DO you think it fools anybody honest and educated? making mentally inept, hyperbolic and failed "arguments" like the one above jis just away to get none of your arguments on this issue taken seriously because theres no logic to support them.

DO you have one argument thats based on facts or is even accurate and can be support in reality? . . . . . one?

Im a christian and i leave my house every day with no problems? weird huh? lol
Your post fails again
 
vesper said:
Yeah another stellar post depicting the trampling of the moral conscience. All those people of faith need not leave their homes with said faith to work in the public square! Those damn people of faith and a moral conscience have no business dragging that faith into the public square. Let them leave it at home or only pull it out on Saturday's or Sunday's in their little places of worship.......gottcha
Click to expand...

If they are using characteristics of people (which in no way would actually affect their business) to judge them as unworthy to do business with, then they should not be in business and deserve to be punished for refusing to do business with those people.

You set up a business that is open to the public, then you need to be prepared to do business with the entire public, not just those that agree with your personal moral code. Don't like that, then don't work somewhere that might conflict with your beliefs.
 
vesper said:
No it is not hyperbole. People are being made to make decisions everyday whether they violate their moral conscience to keep their job or be at peace with their conscience and lose their job. It shouldn't be that way.
Click to expand...

again repeat this lie 500 times nobody honest, educated and objective will ever buy it but please keep up this entertainment that you cant support.
 
roguenuke said:
If they are using characteristics of people (which in no way would actually affect their business) to judge them as unworthy to do business with, then they should not be in business and deserve to be punished for refusing to do business with those people.

You set up a business that is open to the public, then you need to be prepared to do business with the entire public, not just those that agree with your personal moral code. Don't like that, then don't work somewhere that might conflict with your beliefs.
Click to expand...

IDK, If you come into my business throw a punch at me and a shoe and demand I sell you a .99 cent candy bar on the basis of "****" and if I refuse am I the bigot or the aggressor?

Maybe you are the aggressor?
 
vesper said:
No it is not hyperbole. People are being made to make decisions everyday whether they violate their moral conscience to keep their job or be at peace with their conscience and lose their job. It shouldn't be that way.
Click to expand...

The price of living in a free society. Actually it goes beyond even that when you consider that people have being doing that for thousands of years.
 
Mr.Nick said:
IDK, If you come into my business throw a punch at me and a shoe and demand I sell you a .99 cent candy bar on the basis of "****" and if I refuse am I the bigot or the aggressor?

Maybe you are the aggressor?
Click to expand...

That punching you (or even causing a problem) would disrupt your ability to do business. Notice the qualifier in the post of mine you quoted. The characteristics being protected against discrimination have nothing to do with a person's business being legitimately affected by those traits. They are simply prejudices of the business owner being used against others to not do business with them.
 
vesper said:
Tell that to the nurse who lost her job because of her moral conscience could not allow her to assist in an abortion.
Tell that to the doctor that was hauled into court because he refused to artificially inseminate a single woman because his moral conscience believes his services were to assist married couples wanting children.
Tell that to those who work in social welfare with a code based on religious morals who end up having to close their doors because they can no longer operate on what the "state rules" says they must. And all those organizations out there who are so willing to help the needy that no longer qualify for government assistance because their moral conscience will not allow them to compromise to the government mandates they must comply to receive funding.
Tell that to the baker who had to close up his shop because he was found violating accommodation laws and if he didn't comply faces fines and jail time even though his state constitution promised him the right to practice his moral conscience.

What you want people to do is unconscionable. You want them to forget who they are and what they believe in order to work in the public square. What you are willing to deny a person, his identity, in the name of anti-discrimination is appalling and the worst discrimination of all. After all, if a person can't freely be who they are in the public square, they have lost their freedom.
Click to expand...

And little by little the remaining freedoms will be chipped away at, until they too are gone. There would have been an outcry had they attempted to do everything at once - but by taking little steps to achieve a goal, the public tends to ignore it if it isn't their "personal ox being gored." And that usually worked, until they miscalculated and Obamacare hit the scene, and millions of people suddenly became aware that the government wasn't looking out for anyone but themselves. It will be interesting to see what the next step is, and how - whatever it is - it will be viewed by the public.

Greetings, Vesper. :2wave:
 
roguenuke said:
That punching you (or even causing a problem) would disrupt your ability to do business. Notice the qualifier in the post of mine you quoted. The characteristics being protected against discrimination have nothing to do with a person's business being legitimately affected by those traits. They are simply prejudices of the business owner being used against others to not do business with them.
Click to expand...

Notice how you did not deny the violence..

Well, that scenario would never happen EVER in my line of business...

But thanks for your peace and tolerance.
 
Mr.Nick said:
IDK, If you come into my business throw a punch at me and a shoe and demand I sell you a .99 cent candy bar on the basis of "****" and if I refuse am I the bigot or the aggressor?

Maybe you are the aggressor?
Click to expand...

did you just try and compare breaking the law and illegal discrimination to you not serving somebody that tried to physically assault you and suggest thats a parallel analogy?:lamo

that might be one of the worst, failed and factually nonparallel analogies i have read this year.
 
vesper said:
Well thank you so much for your claim that I have let loons into my head. I read the findings of the judges. The people were fined and were warned with threat of jail time in some instances. You people who have advocated for same sex marriage have not a clue what you have done in regard to people in this country of faith and moral conscience and your accommodation laws in the name of discrimination. You all have become the discriminators.
Click to expand...

Post one instance where they were threatened with jail time. Just one.

And talk about being uninformed, most of those instances were in states that did not even have same sex marriage. The weddings were committment ceremonies or marriages performed in other states. These cases were due to violations of antidiscrimination laws, which had nothing to do with same sex marriage. Once again the loons got into your head.
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
Indian culture is one. I'd have to research for more.
Click to expand...

Yes some of them accepted a certain form of gay unions (which isn't the same as gay marriage).

I have a hard time accepting the notion that gay marriage accepted on a societal level has been a commonplace occurence in the past but then again, it doesn't really matter.

Most of us posting on this board today were raised in a society where people had a married mother and a father as the norm (divorce, death or single mother birth aside) which is why many people struggle with the idea of marriage being something other than that. There are also many whose religious beliefs tell them that marriage is between a man and a woman. It amazes me to read posts accusing those people of being ignorant, bigots, and some of the other nasty words I see tossed at those people. Because some people's views on marriage have evolved doesn't mean everyone's views on marriage, or at least what they perceive marriage to be, have evolved.

The way to bring people into a new way of thinking IMO isn't with insults and degradation, but instead with logic, reason, some passion, and education. That isn't the case on this board, and I think the ones who argue with too much insulting against the non-believers aren't astute enough to realize the mistake they are making. If this was all being handled another way, I would suspect far more than a little over half of the country would share their views, but bullying and insulting isn't the way to go about it. People by nature will push back and resist when attacked.

Also, I find it interesting that many of the people whose arguments are based on the "wisdom" of judges are the same people who scream when they talk about the decision of SCOTUS on hot topics like Citizens United. Are judges infallible? No, to read some of the same people who claim they are for this particular situation.

This is where the gay-rights advocates have gone wrong.
 
AGENT J said:
all examples of morons choosing to break the law
nobody forced them to break the law they were stupid and choose too, they thought laws and rights didnt apply to them and they found out they were wrong

so again let us know when you have FACTUAL examples of people being FORCED to break the law lol
Click to expand...

What part of breaking their moral conscience versus breaking man made laws don't you understand? Sure they could have violated what in their soul they believe to be right to adhere to your accommodation laws but they chose to not compromise their conscience. And thanks to folks like you it cost them dearly.
 
CriticalThought said:
I am tired of the same bullcrap. It all comes down to people oppose same sex marriage because it is not what they were taught to view marriage as. They come out with all these half baked rationalizations of "marriage is about procreation" or "marriage has always been between a man and a woman" but even under the lowest possible scrutiny of the facts those rationalizations are clearly incorrect and wrong. What they are really saying is they cannot see a purpose for marriage if it includes same sex couples. It is their problem. They have the issue. They are too narrow minded to see beyond their preconceptions and prejudices.
Click to expand...

You've evolved. They haven't. And they also represent, if polls are to be believed, almost 1/2 of the population of this country.

They are also entitled to believe what they do without being degraded for it.

I was born in 1962. I can assure you, through the bulk of my 50+ years on this Earth, when the word "marriage" came into my mind, I pictured a man and a woman, because that's what was the norm when I was born and for many years after that. Does it make me narrow minded that my mind defaults to Dan & Susan and not Dan & Stephen? The mention of a random group of native Americans or a couple of Roman emporers marrying someone of the same sex doesn't change the fact that the bulk of our citizens were born into a society with opposite sex people in marriage, and it will take decades if not generations to change that.

You certainly don't expect the accepted national perception of something to turn on a dime, do you?
 
Kal'Stang said:
The price of living in a free society. Actually it goes beyond even that when you consider that people have being doing that for thousands of years.
Click to expand...

I disagree. A free society means people are allowed the freedoms afforded them. In our society religious freedoms are the very first mentioned in the 1st Amendment. To deny a man to be who he is because of his moral conscience in the public square is unacceptable and frankly unconstitutional.
 
CriticalThought said:
Can you actually post real examples of all of these hypothetical situations? It is hard for me to take someone seriously when they are claiming someone is facing jail time for violating an "accommodation" law. In what state does that occur?
Click to expand...


#1 Nurses: Since the hospital receive federal funds they could not be required to assist with abortions.
(Court temporarily stops NJ hospital from forcing nurses to participate in abortions - Alliance Defending Freedom)

#2 The doctors in question had been providing the woman with fertility treatments for about a year. The practice also had an exclusive contract with the insurance company for coverage. http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2008-08/41684837.pdf

#3 He's referencing Boston Catholic Charities who voluntarily decided to stop adoption placement since their discriminated against taxpayers but still wanted to collect $1,000,000 in government funds for doing adoption placements. Usually the claim is that the State forced them to close, not the case as there are multiple Catholic Charities still adoption placement placement. (CNS STORY: Catholic Charities in Boston Archdiocese to end adoption services)

#4 The baker who closed up shop is Sweetcakes by Mellisa who closed their storefront (the still operate from their home) because the owners said that business fell off. The bakery was not closed, as was said above, because "he was found violating accommodation laws". That is complete hyperbole. The bakery is still in business, the storefront was closed - not because of government action, but because the public didn't support their discriminatory conduct by not buying their cakes. (Baker Who Lost Shop After Refusing Gay Couple’s Wedding Cake Has Surprise Reaction to Ongoing Attacks: ‘My Eternal Home Is What Matters’ | Video | TheBlaze.com)



>>>>
 
vesper said:
I disagree. A free society means people are allowed the freedoms afforded them. In our society religious freedoms are the very first mentioned in the 1st Amendment. To deny a man to be who he is because of his moral conscience in the public square is unacceptable and frankly unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

I agree wholeheartedly with this. The First Amendment protects the rights of people to exercise their freedom of religion.

For some reason people believe it's acceptable to insult people who are exercising their First Amendment rights while at the same time screaming about Constitutional rights of marriage which should be honored.

Either you respect the Constitution, or you don't. I marvel how some people believe the Constitution doesn't apply except when they believe it applies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom