• 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:
#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)



>>>>
Click to expand...

Nice try World Watcher but no cigar.
 
tres borrachos said:
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.
Click to expand...

Thank you Tres for your response. It gives me hope.
 
tres borrachos said:
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?
Click to expand...

Fair enough. But my little ounce of contempt does not justify the persecution complex of some of these people. Tell them to suck it up. They do not own marriage.
 
tres borrachos said:
Yes some of them accepted a certain form of gay unions (which isn't the same as gay marriage).
Click to expand...

It is the equivalent of marriage. The Indians didn't call it marriage, but the essence was the same. Life long partners. Yeah, they didn't have ceremonies for it afaik, but then neither did the European peasantry before 1563 or so. That was when the Council of Trent decided that marriages must be performed in front of a priest with witnesses.

tres borrachos said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're right, it doesn't matter. It is just a little bit of fact to be thrown at those that are anti-SSM and try to use history as to it "never being accepted" and it just recently having become "a thing".

tres borrachos said:
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.
Click to expand...

Personally I have no problem with them believing that SSM is wrong. But I do have a problem with them trying to deny Rights based on their religious beliefs.

tres borrachos said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I can do without the name calling myself. But there are times when its necessary unfortunately. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.

tres borrachos said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'd scream if it was the result of a few judges, 30+ though all from across the county, even in same view states? I think I'd shut my mouth at that point.

tres borrachos said:
This is where the gay-rights advocates have gone wrong.
Click to expand...

Nobody's perfect. :shrug:
 
vesper said:
Nice try World Watcher but no cigar.
Click to expand...


What is incorrect?


1. Did the judge not issue the injunction and the nurses were not forced to assist with abortion?

2. Were the Doctors not treating the lesbian for infertility for a year and were they not under exclusive contract with the woman's medical insurance provider?

3. Maybe you disagree with the fact that the Catholic News Service reported that the Archdiocese received $1,000,000 in taxpayer funding?

4. You can't possibly disagree with the owner of the bakery when she said:

"“Just the whole being affected big time in our wedding industry part of the business — the vendors not referring us any more,” Melissa said when asked how the incident impacted her business. “We coasted it through the summer to see how it would be. We had quite a few wedding cakes that we had booked and people cancelled. The referrals that we would get, none of those came in. In past years, Melissa said that the family had a good cushion and that the majority of their money would come in during wedding season each summer. While this would carry the business through the winter, the stark reality was that the family’s current financial situation and the dearth of orders meant that closing the shop was a necessity, as Melissa said that she and Aaron were struggling to meet financial commitments each month.”​


>>>>
 
tres borrachos said:
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.
Click to expand...

Except that we're not insulting them for exercising their Rights. We're insulting the beliefs that are bigoted. Big difference.
 
vesper said:
The hell they aren't! You are making people of faith ignore their moral conscience forcing them to perform services for same sex marriages which is something they find to be an abomination. Because if they don't they can go to jail, face financial ruin and lose their business. And yes if you can get away with that it isn't that far off with activist judges and a hatred on the left for people of faith whom you are already suppressing that you will soon be suppressing their places of worship forcing your discrimination BS on them too.
Click to expand...

I have a moral and religious objection to the recurrent training the FAA requires me to undergo to be a commercial pilot.
 
vesper said:
Thank you Tres for your response. It gives me hope.
Click to expand...

I watch people day in and day out on this board insult religious believers, which I happen not to be (my choice) but I respect people's right to have religious beliefs. Those tend to be the same people who screech about the Constitutional rights of people to marry whomever they want. I believe people should marry whomever they want because I'm one of those people who thinks that grown ups should do whatever works for them, which in my world includes polygamy, siblings, and their computers if they want to claim a loving union with that. I don't' think that because Chief Justice Burger said in 1967 that interracial couples can marry or some judge in 2014 said gay people can marry. I think it because I think it based on my own opinion.

It can't be both ways. Either the Constitution grants rights, or it doesn't. It clearly states with no ambiguity a right to exercise religion. I have a problem with people's use of the Constitution when it suits their purposes, and ignoring it when it doesn't.
 
tres borrachos said:
I watch people day in and day out on this board insult religious believers, which I happen not to be (my choice) but I respect people's right to have religious beliefs. Those tend to be the same people who screech about the Constitutional rights of people to marry whomever they want. I believe people should marry whomever they want because I'm one of those people who thinks that grown ups should do whatever works for them, which in my world includes polygamy, siblings, and their computers if they want to claim a loving union with that. I don't' think that because Chief Justice Burger said in 1967 that interracial couples can marry or some judge in 2014 said gay people can marry. I think it because I think it based on my own opinion.

It can't be both ways. Either the Constitution grants rights, or it doesn't. It clearly states with no ambiguity a right to exercise religion. I have a problem with people's use of the Constitution when it suits their purposes, and ignoring it when it doesn't.
Click to expand...

Wait, where exactly is the constitutional right to not be insulted found?
 
Kal'Stang said:
Except that we're not insulting them for exercising their Rights. We're insulting the beliefs that are bigoted. Big difference.
Click to expand...

In your opinion, their beliefs are bigoted. So yes, you are insulting them and doing exactly what you accuse them of. You are discounting their religious beliefs with no respect for their Constitutional right to have them. You are showing a bigotry against religious beliefs. Sorry, Kal, but I don't see it any other way.

You can disagree with religion without applying a personal attack to it.

JMO.
 
Deuce said:
Wait, where exactly is the constitutional right to not be insulted found?
Click to expand...

Nobody said there was one.

If you truly respect the Constitution, you would not insult people who have religious beliefs. That is a protected right.

Insult them all you want, but you should also be prepared to be called out on your lack of respect for the Constitution.
 
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...

Who's being denied? No one is forcing people to perform religious ceremonies. In fact businesses are required to allow people to practice religious prayers when working. And two gay men getting married does not infringe on your religious freedoms at all. Not even a tiny fraction of a fraction.

As for denying gay couples business, I would have no problem getting rid of that law. I believe that business owners have a right to discriminate who they sell their property to. There's a whole thread that was made about that very subject of which I was a participant in to show that I'm speaking the truth on that. Let's get that law changed.
 
Kal'Stang said:
It is the equivalent of marriage. The Indians didn't call it marriage, but the essence was the same. Life long partners. Yeah, they didn't have ceremonies for it afaik, but then neither did the European peasantry before 1563 or so. That was when the Council of Trent decided that marriages must be performed in front of a priest with witnesses.



You're right, it doesn't matter. It is just a little bit of fact to be thrown at those that are anti-SSM and try to use history as to it "never being accepted" and it just recently having become "a thing".



Personally I have no problem with them believing that SSM is wrong. But I do have a problem with them trying to deny Rights based on their religious beliefs.



Yeah, I can do without the name calling myself. But there are times when its necessary unfortunately. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.



I'd scream if it was the result of a few judges, 30+ though all from across the county, even in same view states? I think I'd shut my mouth at that point.



Nobody's perfect. :shrug:
Click to expand...

30 judges do not make a compelling case. You should support gay marriage because it's what you believe to be right, not what some judge thinks. Do you let judges do all your thinking for you? If 30 judges say gay marriage isn't a right, are they rigth too, just because they are judges? Are judges infallible, Kal? I don't believe they are. They are humans, just like you & me. Put 10 of them in a room and show them a statute, and I'll bet you'll get 6 different interpretations.

30 judges in the past probably thought slavery was a good idea. Were they right, just because they were judges?

Religious beliefs are protected by the Constitution. It's written in black & white. No judge needs to interpret that.
 
tres borrachos said:
In your opinion, their beliefs are bigoted. So yes, you are insulting them and doing exactly what you accuse them of. You are discounting their religious beliefs with no respect for their Constitutional right to have them. You are showing a bigotry against religious beliefs. Sorry, Kal, but I don't see it any other way.

You can disagree with religion without applying a personal attack to it.

JMO.
Click to expand...

The 1st amendment has another part in it that applies here. Freedom of Speech. As long as I don't attempt to deny them their right to exercise their religious beliefs then I'm not going against the Constitution, indeed I am also exercising MY right to insult them. Insulting their religious beliefs is not the same as denying them their right to exercise their religious beliefs.

And yes, it is my opinion. Which is JUST as valid as their beliefs which is nothing more than opinions also.

;)
 
CriticalThought said:
Fair enough. But my little ounce of contempt does not justify the persecution complex of some of these people. Tell them to suck it up. They do not own marriage.
Click to expand...

They don't own marriage. But you & I don't own the Constitution, either. Their rights, whether you agree or not, are protected.

And the reality is, almost 1/2 of the country doesn't think as we do. It's going to take some getting there to change that, but being antagonistic isn't the way. JMO.
 
tres borrachos said:
Nobody said there was one.

If you truly respect the Constitution, you would not insult people who have religious beliefs. That is a protected right.

Insult them all you want, but you should also be prepared to be called out on your lack of respect for the Constitution.
Click to expand...

You are disrespecting the constitution right now because you are criticizing my speech.
 
tres borrachos said:
30 judges do not make a compelling case. You should support gay marriage because it's what you believe to be right, not what some judge thinks. Do you let judges do all your thinking for you? If 30 judges say gay marriage isn't a right, are they rigth too, just because they are judges? Are judges infallible, Kal? I don't believe they are. They are humans, just like you & me. Put 10 of them in a room and show them a statute, and I'll bet you'll get 6 different interpretations.

30 judges in the past probably thought slavery was a good idea. Were they right, just because they were judges?

Religious beliefs are protected by the Constitution. It's written in black & white. No judge needs to interpret that.
Click to expand...

They don't make a compelling case? Then, by all means, provide a rebuttal to any reasoning in any of their decisions.
 
tres borrachos said:
30 judges do not make a compelling case. You should support gay marriage because it's what you believe to be right, not what some judge thinks. Do you let judges do all your thinking for you? If 30 judges say gay marriage isn't a right, are they rigth too, just because they are judges? Are judges infallible, Kal? I don't believe they are. They are humans, just like you & me. Put 10 of them in a room and show them a statute, and I'll bet you'll get 6 different interpretations.

30 judges in the past probably thought slavery was a good idea. Were they right, just because they were judges?

Religious beliefs are protected by the Constitution. It's written in black & white. No judge needs to interpret that.
Click to expand...

I've been pro-ssm long before it became kosher to be pro-ssm. So no, the judges didn't affect my thinking in the slightest. And yeah, 30 judges in the same room, I'd scoff at them to if they came up with a ruling I didn't like. But 30 judges across the country with nothing in common other than that they are judges? I'd shut up about it. I might not like the rulings, but I would still shut up about it.
 
Kal'Stang said:
The 1st amendment has another part in it that applies here. Freedom of Speech. As long as I don't attempt to deny them their right to exercise their religious beliefs then I'm not going against the Constitution, indeed I am also exercising MY right to insult them. Insulting their religious beliefs is not the same as denying them their right to exercise their religious beliefs.

And yes, it is my opinion. Which is JUST as valid as their beliefs which is nothing more than opinions also.

;)
Click to expand...

<sigh> Nobody said you don't have a right to insult people, Kal. That's your choice.

You seem to be missing my point. You can ignore their rights and insult them until you're blue in the face. What exactly have you accomplished by doing that?

This is what I'm talking about. Is this all about insulting people, or is this because anyone really gives a **** about gay marriage? The war cries of "I can insult whoever I want and they can suck it up" sound a little more personal, and no that isn't just you. I see the "nanny nanny boo boo your side is losing" posts all over the place. Is this some sort of contest?
 
tres borrachos said:
<sigh> Nobody said you don't have a right to insult people, Kal. That's your choice.

You seem to be missing my point. You can ignore their rights and insult them until you're blue in the face. What exactly have you accomplished by doing that?

This is what I'm talking about. Is this all about insulting people, or is this because anyone really gives a **** about gay marriage? The war cries of "I can insult whoever I want and they can suck it up" sound a little more personal, and no that isn't just you. I see the "nanny nanny boo boo your side is losing" posts all over the place. Is this some sort of contest?
Click to expand...

Here's what you are missing. It's not disrespectful of the constitution to express my disapproval of someone else's beliefs. That's about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
 
tres borrachos said:
I watch people day in and day out on this board insult religious believers, which I happen not to be (my choice) but I respect people's right to have religious beliefs. Those tend to be the same people who screech about the Constitutional rights of people to marry whomever they want. I believe people should marry whomever they want because I'm one of those people who thinks that grown ups should do whatever works for them, which in my world includes polygamy, siblings, and their computers if they want to claim a loving union with that. I don't' think that because Chief Justice Burger said in 1967 that interracial couples can marry or some judge in 2014 said gay people can marry. I think it because I think it based on my own opinion.

It can't be both ways. Either the Constitution grants rights, or it doesn't. It clearly states with no ambiguity a right to exercise religion. I have a problem with people's use of the Constitution when it suits their purposes, and ignoring it when it doesn't.
Click to expand...

When it comes to gay marriage, I believe it is the right of the people to decide by a vote whether they want it in their neck of the woods or not and that decision either way needs to be respected. I have a real problem with political appointed judges overturning the will of the majority of the people especially when they do not base their entire argument on constitutional law. Most recently the case in Oregon. The judge was gay himself and made his ruling based in part on his personal feelings. When the baker in Colorado was found violating accommodation laws the ruling of that judge was based on emotion in part for making the gay couple "feel bad" for not baking them a cake. This is ridiculous.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I've been pro-ssm long before it became kosher to be pro-ssm. So no, the judges didn't affect my thinking in the slightest. And yeah, 30 judges in the same room, I'd scoff at them to if they came up with a ruling I didn't like. But 30 judges across the country with nothing in common other than that they are judges? I'd shut up about it. I might not like the rulings, but I would still shut up about it.
Click to expand...

So you will say the same thing to any of the posters in this thread scoffing on the rights of people like Vesper when those people scream about a ruling that SCOTUS hands down? Or when a judge lets a kiddie rapist go, you'll say "shut up" to them?

I don't like a lot of rulings that have been handed down, from SCOTUS to the circuit courts to local courts. Should I shut up about them, or am I free to have an express an opposing opinion without being insulted.
 
vesper said:
1.)What part of breaking their moral conscience versus breaking man made laws don't you understand?
2.) 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.
3.)And thanks to folks like you it cost them dearly.
Click to expand...

1.) i understand the lie you present perfectly its just nobody educated and honest buys it. They choose to break the law, that's thier fault next times the dummies will know better or face the consequences of breaking the law again.
2.) or simply not break the law like morons
3.) wrong again LMAO i had nothing to do with. ANy costs they have to go through are due to thier vast stupidity, selfishness and ignorance. Maybe next time those criminals wont break the law.
SOrry freedom, rights and laws bother you but they are the same for all of us, you can continue to support criminals if you like but i wont I like freedom and rights.
If you disagree simply post ONE fact that supports the lie they were forced to break the law . . . . ONE lol we'd LOVE to read it.


thanks in advance.
 
tres borrachos said:
So you will say the same thing to any of the posters in this thread scoffing on the rights of people like Vesper when those people scream about a ruling that SCOTUS hands down? Or when a judge lets a kiddie rapist go, you'll say "shut up" to them?

I don't like a lot of rulings that have been handed down, from SCOTUS to the circuit courts to local courts. Should I shut up about them, or am I free to have an express an opposing opinion without being insulted.
Click to expand...

See, you still really don't get it. You don't have the right to express an opinion "without being insulted." You have the right to express that opinion without the government punishing you for doing so.

As for vesper's rights, when he starts supporting my right to skip recurrent training as a commercial pilot due to my religious objections, I might consider his right to not bake a cake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom