• 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!

Arkansas judge strikes down gay marriage ban


if you want anybody to take this failed argument seriously all you have to do is factually prove its a real concern and then also explain why straight marriage doesn't do that same thing. Until then everybody honest and educated will laugh at the joke strawman and fear tactic it is.
Thank you in advance but my guess is you will dodge this request because theres no support out there.
 
That is first of all nothing but fearmongering speculation, not an actual challenge to any law. Second, that blogger apparently has no clue about the laws. If a church is opening up their spaces/properties to the public for lease/rental, then that means they must abide by anti-discrimination/public accommodation laws, even if that violates the beliefs espoused by the church because they are choosing to open up their spaces/property as a business, to make money for the church. This applies to more than just same sex couples, and exists without same sex marriage being legal.

This is absolutely not a clergyman/minister being forced to perform a wedding ceremony against their beliefs. That is the contention being made, question being asked. And you still have not shown any proof/evidence that any minister/religious leader will be forced to perform a wedding or be sued/lose a lawsuit for refusing to perform a same sex wedding.

In fact, the Washington law that legalized same sex marriage included a specific protection for religious organizations and clergy to refuse to perform, recognize, or accommodate same sex weddings.

I disagree. A business owner should be free to "discriminate" on any basis the like. They are the owner after all and nobody has a right to use, buy, etc to what a person owns.

And I disagree with Washington law about forcing churches to allow it on their property.
 
Which is what I said, you try to hide behind "freedom" but you don't really support "freedom". You support only those things you agree with.


>>>>

No, you specifically said I didn't care about "freedom of religion", which I do care about. And yes, I care about Freedom also. Including the Freedom to tell people to "**** off" if they want to. There is no "right" to products, services, or anything that belongs to another person. If the owner wants to "discriminate" for whatever reason, he/she has the freedom to do so.
 
I disagree. A business owner should be free to "discriminate" on any basis the like. They are the owner after all and nobody has a right to use, buy, etc to what a person owns.

And I disagree with Washington law about forcing churches to allow it on their property.

There are plenty of people who do disagree with anti-discrimination laws. However, they are still in place and not likely to completely go away any time in the near future. They may change or be limited more (which I personally think some of them should be, just not all), but the need is there and recognized by a majority of people, outside the government and in.

The Washington law does not force churches to do that.

Washington Same-Sex Marriage Veto Referendum, Referendum 74 (2012) - Ballotpedia

Does Same-Sex Marriage Threaten Religious Freedom? | Political Eye Candy

" Many, such as Washington’s, not only exempt clergy from performing ceremonies, but also allow religious organizations to refuse any sort of accommodations, facilities, privileges, or goods relating to a same-sex marriage, and provide immunity from any civil action relating to such a refusal."
 
To you lefties the vote that the people of the state means nothing and that is the scary part

A few posts up you said this was being appealed. Apparently you only care about judicial decisions if they work in your favor.

No, Navy Pride, the scary person is that a person who joined our military to defend our freedom and our constitution believes that it's acceptable for a vote of the people to violate the constitution.
 
No, you specifically said I didn't care about "freedom of religion", which I do care about. And yes, I care about Freedom also. Including the Freedom to tell people to "**** off" if they want to. There is no "right" to products, services, or anything that belongs to another person. If the owner wants to "discriminate" for whatever reason, he/she has the freedom to do so.


You are confusing laws which provide for State recognition of Civil Marriage between two people of the same sex and Public Accommodation laws which provide that businesses cannot discriminate in the goods and services they provide.

Two very different things.

There is no compelling government interest served by denying any two law abiding, tax paying, US Citizen, infertile, non-related, consenting adults from entering into a Civil Marriage - whether they be of the same or different sexes. On the other hand Public Accommodation laws (IMHO) are an usurpation of rights of property and free association when applied to private businesses.

The government should not discriminate against gays and lesbians under Civil Marriage laws and Public Accommodation laws that apply to private businesses should be repealed. A private business owner should be able to refuse service based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexual orientation if they choose to do so. Member of the public so discriminated against should be free to public announce in the conditions of their treatment whether it is a local news show, radio show, internet site, review site, etc. Then let the market determine whether the business will succeed or fail based on how it serves its customers.



>>>>
 
In correct. I don't give a **** about homosexual "rights" when they conflict with other's rights.

I have been reading thru and you have yet to demonstrate where that is/could be happening.
 
Back
Top Bottom