• 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!

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

Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

Good morning Lursa,

You are certainly welcome to your opinion. Here's mine.

Our right to conscience makes up who were are as individuals. From our moral conscience we discern what is right and wrong. Often, but not always, this stems from religious beliefs. Most state constitutions recognize the importance of protecting a person's right to conscience as it is deeply tied to religious liberty. Some state governments have enacted conscience protection laws. In addition, federal law conditions receipt of certain federal funds on respect for conscience in particular situations. These protections reflect the high value a civil society places on religious and moral conscience. But we have to vigilantly protect them because there is an ever growing group of judges and legislators that do not respect the moral conscience of individuals resulting in this culture war we seem to be in the midst of. They seem to have this mentality that your moral conscience comes second or not at all when it comes to accommodation laws and in the end the one who is denied his moral conscience is the one that was discriminated against the most for he is not allowed to be who he is in the public square. This isn't just happening in regard to same sex marriage. The health care field is riddled with difficult moral issues including abortion, contraception, artificial reproductive technologies, euthanasia, and assisted suicide. Health care providers with moral or religious objections to participating in these and other procedures face threats to conscience. The threats can be loss of a job for refusing to participate or be sued for denying a service that is against their moral conscience. Another area where moral conscience is being attacked is social welfare. Religious organizations such as adoption agencies, nursing homes or orphanages are forced to comply with the “official” state position on controversial moral issues, the potential for infringement of religious liberty and rights of conscience is clear as more and more of these organizations can not comply with the "official" state position for it is in conflict with their moral conscience and society ends up losing dearly with the loss of their services. While you see it solely as a discrimination issue toward the one denied a service you are more than willing to force another to deny his moral conscience in order to comply with what you think is right forcing him to a point of facing costly legal bills and losing his livelihood and unable to provide for his family. When a person is forced to compromise his moral conscience he has been denied the most important part of his freedom.



Just a couple of things...


#1 Do you support the right of individuals to claim a "moral conscience" (whether you disagree with it or not is irrelevant) and to hide behind that to discriminate against Blacks, or Mexicans, or Jews, or Women, or the disabled (remember the Muslim cab drivers refusing to take disabled people with service dogs?)? (Personally I support the repeal of Public Accommodation laws so not "moral conscience" requirement would exist because as a private business they have rights of property and association that are usurped by PA laws.

#2 It's a matter between the employee and the employer if an individual refuses to perform their duties.

#3 I agree that religious organization should be able to operated based on their own principals (as long as the comply with basic heath and safety codes), that does not mean that they can expect to receive a contract from the state if they function in a discriminatory fashion. Boston Catholic Charities is one of the more famous instances. Some people assume that Catholic Charity adoption was shut down in Massachusetts, that is not correct. There are still plenty of Catholic Charities in MA that provide adoption services. The thing with Boston Catholic Charities is that they were under a $1,000,000 contract to the City to fund their services. Boston Catholic Charities was not forced to close their doors, they choose to close adoption services when they were told that if they were going to accept taxpayer funding then they could not discriminate against taxpayers.




>>>>
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

Good morning Lursa,

You are certainly welcome to your opinion. Here's mine.

Our right to conscience makes up who were are as individuals. From our moral conscience we discern what is right and wrong. Often, but not always, this stems from religious beliefs. Most state constitutions recognize the importance of protecting a person's right to conscience as it is deeply tied to religious liberty. Some state governments have enacted conscience protection laws. In addition, federal law conditions receipt of certain federal funds on respect for conscience in particular situations. These protections reflect the high value a civil society places on religious and moral conscience. But we have to vigilantly protect them because there is an ever growing group of judges and legislators that do not respect the moral conscience of individuals resulting in this culture war we seem to be in the midst of. They seem to have this mentality that your moral conscience comes second or not at all when it comes to accommodation laws and in the end the one who is denied his moral conscience is the one that was discriminated against the most for he is not allowed to be who he is in the public square. This isn't just happening in regard to same sex marriage. The health care field is riddled with difficult moral issues including abortion, contraception, artificial reproductive technologies, euthanasia, and assisted suicide. Health care providers with moral or religious objections to participating in these and other procedures face threats to conscience. The threats can be loss of a job for refusing to participate or be sued for denying a service that is against their moral conscience. Another area where moral conscience is being attacked is social welfare. Religious organizations such as adoption agencies, nursing homes or orphanages are forced to comply with the “official” state position on controversial moral issues, the potential for infringement of religious liberty and rights of conscience is clear as more and more of these organizations can not comply with the "official" state position for it is in conflict with their moral conscience and society ends up losing dearly with the loss of their services. While you see it solely as a discrimination issue toward the one denied a service you are more than willing to force another to deny his moral conscience in order to comply with what you think is right forcing him to a point of facing costly legal bills and losing his livelihood and unable to provide for his family. When a person is forced to compromise his moral conscience he has been denied the most important part of his freedom.

I understand that but again....their 'moral' stance on their religion and moral conscience is very selective. We dont hear about small town bakers refusing to bake wedding cakes for adulterers, do we? And of course in small towns they know. Probably in neighborhoods in cities too.

Jewish bakeries bake fantastic hot-crossed buns for Easter in NJ. Muslim and Jewish business owners serve Jews and Muslims respectively.

It is the hypocrisy I see....not a fundamental belief. If it was all about the belief in not serving sinners, they wouldnt even be in business. But they have *chosen* to isolate gays and I dont see that as religiously based (since they dont apply that equally to fornicators, adulterers, etc)...I see it as the same BS talking out of both sides of their mouths as people who tried to justify separate counters for blacks.

Just IMO.
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

It is the hypocrisy I see....


Leviticus%20Tattoo_01.jpg




Always a classic.



>>>>
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

I understand that but again....their 'moral' stance on their religion and moral conscience is very selective. We dont hear about small town bakers refusing to bake wedding cakes for adulterers, do we? And of course in small towns they know. Probably in neighborhoods in cities too.

Jewish bakeries bake fantastic hot-crossed buns for Easter in NJ. Muslim and Jewish business owners serve Jews and Muslims respectively.

It is the hypocrisy I see....not a fundamental belief. If it was all about the belief in not serving sinners, they wouldnt even be in business. But they have *chosen* to isolate gays and I dont see that as religiously based (since they dont apply that equally to fornicators, adulterers, etc)...I see it as the same BS talking out of both sides of their mouths as people who tried to justify separate counters for blacks.

Just IMO.

When you go into a place of business such as a bakery, does the baker ask you if you are an adulterer, a fornicator, a thief, or if you covet your neighbor's house? NO. Do they ask you what faith you practice? NO. Do they ask you your ethnicity? NO. Does he ask you your sexual preference? No. As long as you are a paying customer your order is filled until the customer presents them with a specific request that violates their moral conscience. Say a customer came in and asked for a cake depicting 42 DD breasts or a woman's crotch for a bachelor party. Or maybe a cake shaped like an erected penis. Doesn't he have a right to deny his service because what is being asked of him he finds demoralizing? Shouldn't he be allowed to protect his name by not creating something that does not represent who he is? To many marriage is between a man and a woman and God. To force them to create a cake for something they find to be an abomination to God is unfair.
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

Sure, hang a prominent sign saying that's what you're doing and you're on your own. Wouldn't say much for your business prospects at that point though.

No, I'd exercise my business freedom to just not tell people that's what I was doing.
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

When you go into a place of business such as a bakery, does the baker ask you if you are an adulterer, a fornicator, a thief, or if you covet your neighbor's house? NO. Do they ask you what faith you practice? NO. Do they ask you your ethnicity? NO. Does he ask you your sexual preference? No. As long as you are a paying customer your order is filled until the customer presents them with a specific request that violates their moral conscience. Say a customer came in and asked for a cake depicting 42 DD breasts or a woman's crotch for a bachelor party. Or maybe a cake shaped like an erected penis. Doesn't he have a right to deny his service because what is being asked of him he finds demoralizing? Shouldn't he be allowed to protect his name by not creating something that does not represent who he is? To many marriage is between a man and a woman and God. To force them to create a cake for something they find to be an abomination to God is unfair.


If a bakery doesn't create 42DD breast cakes for anyone or if they don't make penis shaped cakes for anyone - they are not in violation of the law.


However if the bakery offers wedding cakes as part of their routine goods provided and if they feel interracial marriage is morally objectionable and refuses "full and equal" service to black people - then they are in violation of the law.

If the bakery offers wedding cakes as part of their routine goods provided and if they feel same-sex marriage is morally objectionable and refuses "full and equal" service to homosexual people - then they are in violation of the law.

If the bakery offers wedding cakes as part of their routine goods provided and if they feel interfaith marriage is morally objectionable and refuses "full and equal" service to people based on the couples religious duality - then they are in violation of the law.



>>>>
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

If a bakery doesn't create 42DD breast cakes for anyone or if they don't make penis shaped cakes for anyone - they are not in violation of the law.


However if the bakery offers wedding cakes as part of their routine goods provided and if they feel interracial marriage is morally objectionable and refuses "full and equal" service to black people - then they are in violation of the law.

If the bakery offers wedding cakes as part of their routine goods provided and if they feel same-sex marriage is morally objectionable and refuses "full and equal" service to homosexual people - then they are in violation of the law.

If the bakery offers wedding cakes as part of their routine goods provided and if they feel interfaith marriage is morally objectionable and refuses "full and equal" service to people based on the couples religious duality - then they are in violation of the law.



>>>>
I am well aware of what the law states. That is why legislation or possibly a Supreme Court case will bring protection to anyone who finds themselves in a position of being forced to violate their own conscience whether it be the baker, the health care provider, the attorney, the social welfare worker etc. That they will be protected without fear of the loss of their livelihood or faced with legal battles and economic ruin.
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

I am well aware of what the law states. That is why legislation or possibly a Supreme Court case will bring protection to anyone who finds themselves in a position of being forced to violate their own conscience whether it be the baker, the health care provider, the attorney, the social welfare worker etc. That they will be protected without fear of the loss of their livelihood or faced with legal battles and economic ruin.


It already been to the Supreme Court, two of them as a matter of fact. The New Mexico Supreme court ruled and upheld Public Accommodation laws even though the appeal was specifically on those grounds. The case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court and they denied cert, which means the New Mexico Supreme Court's decision was the final decision on the matter.

http://www.nmcompcomm.us/nmcases/nmsc/slips/SC33,687.pdf


Sorry that you feel that big government should step in even further and void their right to terminate the employment of an employee that refuses to perform the duties and responsibilities they are being paid for. That should be a decision between the employee and the employer, not a function of government.



>>>>
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

It already been to the Supreme Court, two of them as a matter of fact. The New Mexico Supreme court ruled and upheld Public Accommodation laws even though the appeal was specifically on those grounds. The case was appealed to the United States Supreme Court and they denied cert, which means the New Mexico Supreme Court's decision was the final decision on the matter.

http://www.nmcompcomm.us/nmcases/nmsc/slips/SC33,687.pdf

Sorry that you feel that big government should step in even further and void their right to terminate the employment of an employee that refuses to perform the duties and responsibilities they are being paid for. That should be a decision between the employee and the employer, not a function of government.

Sorry you find it unacceptable for a person to dare have a moral conscience and act on it and/ or be forced to violate it in order to make a living.
Well thanks for the info on the case of the photographer. I noticed the Supremes refused to comment on why it was denied. Guess it is up to states to pass protection laws to give businesses the right to refuse to deal with customers based on religious or moral conscience objections wherever they can. And then again there is Congress.
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

Sorry you find it unacceptable for a person to dare have a moral conscience and act on it and/ or be forced to violate it in order to make a living.

Well that's pretty much bull****.

If you had paid attention to my posts I have repeatedly called for the repeal of Public Accommodation laws.

See it appears that the difference is between you and I is that you call "moral conscience" expections for gays. I call for repeal of the laws based on property rights of the owner which means that religion or "moral conscience" is irrelevant, any business owner gets to refuse any customer for whatever reason they want.



>>>>
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

Well that's pretty much bull****.

If you had paid attention to my posts I have repeatedly called for the repeal of Public Accommodation laws.

See it appears that the difference is between you and I is that you call "moral conscience" expections for gays. I call for repeal of the laws based on property rights of the owner which means that religion or "moral conscience" is irrelevant, any business owner gets to refuse any customer for whatever reason they want.



>>>>

yeah it was a pretty good dose of bull**** wasn't it? :lol: just like a few handfuls you passed out along the way.
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

When you go into a place of business such as a bakery, does the baker ask you if you are an adulterer, a fornicator, a thief, or if you covet your neighbor's house? NO. Do they ask you what faith you practice? NO. Do they ask you your ethnicity? NO. Does he ask you your sexual preference? No. As long as you are a paying customer your order is filled until the customer presents them with a specific request that violates their moral conscience. Say a customer came in and asked for a cake depicting 42 DD breasts or a woman's crotch for a bachelor party. Or maybe a cake shaped like an erected penis. Doesn't he have a right to deny his service because what is being asked of him he finds demoralizing? Shouldn't he be allowed to protect his name by not creating something that does not represent who he is? To many marriage is between a man and a woman and God. To force them to create a cake for something they find to be an abomination to God is unfair.

You ignored the sentences where I specifically said how and why they knew.

He can refuse to create something, probably anything, that he/she finds offensive. Just like an employer can refuse to hire someone that offends him/her. Unless it is for a protected class, protected from discrimination.

There are still people that feel that treating blacks the same as whites is an abomination to God....should we respect their moral conscience? Hey, they can believe whatever they want but in a business they should be prepared to serve *the public.*

If they really dont want to serve someone, just say no. Dont give a reason.
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

yeah it was a pretty good dose of bull**** wasn't it? :lol:


Ya it was. ;)


just like a few handfuls you passed out along the way.


Except the difference is, I understand that my personal wants and the reality of law are two different things. When I discuss the law and case history I've provided links and rulings to substantiate what I say and don't go off spouting stupid stuff about KKK rallies, 42DD breasts and penises.



>>>>
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

When you go into a place of business such as a bakery, does the baker ask you if you are an adulterer, a fornicator, a thief, or if you covet your neighbor's house? NO. Do they ask you what faith you practice? NO. Do they ask you your ethnicity? NO. Does he ask you your sexual preference? No. As long as you are a paying customer your order is filled until the customer presents them with a specific request that violates their moral conscience. Say a customer came in and asked for a cake depicting 42 DD breasts or a woman's crotch for a bachelor party. Or maybe a cake shaped like an erected penis. Doesn't he have a right to deny his service because what is being asked of him he finds demoralizing? Shouldn't he be allowed to protect his name by not creating something that does not represent who he is? To many marriage is between a man and a woman and God. To force them to create a cake for something they find to be an abomination to God is unfair.

If they're not in the business of baking penis cakes, then the baker has every right to refuse to bake one. But if they do provide that service, they are required to do so for any customer willing to pay for one.

The same thing goes for wedding cakes.
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

If they're not in the business of baking penis cakes, then the baker has every right to refuse to bake one. But if they do provide that service, they are required to do so for any customer willing to pay for one.

The same thing goes for wedding cakes.

I know sanga, the point of the example was to show the baker's right to not fulfill the request due to his moral conscience. I wasn't using the example in regard to the law but to show there are instances where one's moral conscience will not allow him to do something. Not for money and at the risk of offending another.
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

Ya it was. ;)





Except the difference is, I understand that my personal wants and the reality of law are two different things. When I discuss the law and case history I've provided links and rulings to substantiate what I say and don't go off spouting stupid stuff about KKK rallies, 42DD breasts and penises.



>>>>

No matter how you go about it, a handful of bull**** is still a handful of bull****. :)
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

I know sanga, the point of the example was to show the baker's right to not fulfill the request due to his moral conscience. I wasn't using the example in regard to the law but to show there are instances where one's moral conscience will not allow him to do something. Not for money and at the risk of offending another.

The baker who bakes wedding cakes doesn't have that right to not bake a wedding cake.
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

The baker who bakes wedding cakes doesn't have that right to not bake a wedding cake.
Yes Sangha I understand that under the current status of accommodation laws but hopefully in the near future through legislation from Congress or protection laws implemented by states will restore a man's right to deny services to those who he finds violates his moral conscience.
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

Yes Sangha I understand that under the current status of accommodation laws but hopefully in the near future through legislation from Congress or protection laws implemented by states will restore a man's right to deny services to those who he finds violates his moral conscience.

Don't hold your breath

Or do. Either way, the people who think their businesses should be able to practice bigotry are dying off.
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

There won't be many more so enjoy it while you can.
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

There won't be many more so enjoy it while you can.


I seem to remember this exact same post multiple times over the course of the last year, each time followed by another one.

Pretty soon you will be right though, as there won't be any left.



>>>>
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

Sorry you find it unacceptable for a person to dare have a moral conscience and act on it and/ or be forced to violate it in order to make a living.
Well thanks for the info on the case of the photographer. I noticed the Supremes refused to comment on why it was denied. Guess it is up to states to pass protection laws to give businesses the right to refuse to deal with customers based on religious or moral conscience objections wherever they can. And then again there is Congress.

why did society find it ok to disregard people who felt it was morally unconscionable to treat blacks equally, serve them, etc...but not gays? Both have had their roots in religious beliefs.
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

There won't be many more so enjoy it while you can.

???? Most have already flipped or are preparing to. All challenges so far have failed.

WA is on Planet Earth....so are you in some parallel universe?
 
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

Good morning Lursa,

You are certainly welcome to your opinion. Here's mine.

Our right to conscience makes up who were are as individuals. From our moral conscience we discern what is right and wrong. Often, but not always, this stems from religious beliefs. Most state constitutions recognize the importance of protecting a person's right to conscience as it is deeply tied to religious liberty. Some state governments have enacted conscience protection laws. In addition, federal law conditions receipt of certain federal funds on respect for conscience in particular situations. These protections reflect the high value a civil society places on religious and moral conscience. But we have to vigilantly protect them because there is an ever growing group of judges and legislators that do not respect the moral conscience of individuals resulting in this culture war we seem to be in the midst of. They seem to have this mentality that your moral conscience comes second or not at all when it comes to accommodation laws and in the end the one who is denied his moral conscience is the one that was discriminated against the most for he is not allowed to be who he is in the public square. This isn't just happening in regard to same sex marriage. The health care field is riddled with difficult moral issues including abortion, contraception, artificial reproductive technologies, euthanasia, and assisted suicide. Health care providers with moral or religious objections to participating in these and other procedures face threats to conscience. The threats can be loss of a job for refusing to participate or be sued for denying a service that is against their moral conscience. Another area where moral conscience is being attacked is social welfare. Religious organizations such as adoption agencies, nursing homes or orphanages are forced to comply with the “official” state position on controversial moral issues, the potential for infringement of religious liberty and rights of conscience is clear as more and more of these organizations can not comply with the "official" state position for it is in conflict with their moral conscience and society ends up losing dearly with the loss of their services. While you see it solely as a discrimination issue toward the one denied a service you are more than willing to force another to deny his moral conscience in order to comply with what you think is right forcing him to a point of facing costly legal bills and losing his livelihood and unable to provide for his family. When a person is forced to compromise his moral conscience he has been denied the most important part of his freedom.

So do you think slavery is morally acceptable? If not, why not?

The Biblical writers did.
 
Last edited:
Re: Oregon Ruling Marks 13th Straight Gay Marriage Win

When you go into a place of business such as a bakery, does the baker ask you if you are an adulterer, a fornicator, a thief, or if you covet your neighbor's house? NO. Do they ask you what faith you practice? NO. Do they ask you your ethnicity? NO. Does he ask you your sexual preference? No. As long as you are a paying customer your order is filled until the customer presents them with a specific request that violates their moral conscience. Say a customer came in and asked for a cake depicting 42 DD breasts or a woman's crotch for a bachelor party. Or maybe a cake shaped like an erected penis. Doesn't he have a right to deny his service because what is being asked of him he finds demoralizing? Shouldn't he be allowed to protect his name by not creating something that does not represent who he is? To many marriage is between a man and a woman and God. To force them to create a cake for something they find to be an abomination to God is unfair.
Like the 'devoutly Christian' Colorado baker who refused to sell a cake to a gay couple because of his 'deeply sincere' religious beliefs about marriage but accepted an order for a wedding cake for a DOG wedding?

Yeah... right.
 
Back
Top Bottom