Supreme Court paves way for gay marriage in several states, leaves issue unresolved nationally

originally posted by: Indigo5
(2) Choose not hear the appeal...Which allows them to not rule on the legitimacy or illegitimacy of Gay Marriage at the federal level, neither coming out for it or against it.

This option would require at least one of the liberal justices to elect not to hear the case as well.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I, of course, want everyone to follow the law - ESPECIALLY the government and the Administration but that is a different discussion. My problem is with discrimination laws being used to promote an anti-religious agenda. How am I harming someone if I refuse to bake a cake for them? REALLY? Just get your cake somewhere else!

As for churches choosing to allow or condone gay marriage that is their choice and they can go with it wherever it takes them. But those of us who do not "choose" that should be allowed to live our lives as we wish. I just don't see it happening. Liberal groups and activists are already talking about removing tax exempt status for churches and groups that don't "toe the line." Think of the Boy Scouts. California is already seriously considering removing their tax exempt status if they haven't already done it. That is nothing more than a pure use of the laws to promote an agenda.

originally posted by: itguysrule
My problem is with discrimination laws being used to promote an anti-religious agenda.

I don't understand why you think anti-discrimination laws promote an anti-religious agenda... Sounds like you're saying that discrimination is a religious tenet, when just the opposite is true.

But if you owned a bakery and were asked to bake a cake for a customer, the personal life of that customer is none of your concern.

How am I harming someone if I refuse to bake a cake for them?

Would it harm you if you went into a business and they refused to serve you because you're religious? What if they're the only one in town? I live in a small town and we have several businesses that are the single supplier of that item. Should I have to drive 3 hours to buy a pair of shoes because the shoe store here refuses to sell to me simply because of who I love?

As for churches choosing to allow or condone gay marriage that is their choice and they can go with it wherever it takes them. But those of us who do not "choose" that should be allowed to live our lives as we wish.

And you can.

Liberal groups and activists are already talking about removing tax exempt status for churches and groups that don't "toe the line."

I don't think they want churches to pay taxes because they don't toe a line. Churches have become VERY political in nature and I think that's why many think they should pay taxes.

Think of the Boy Scouts. California is already seriously considering removing their tax exempt status if they haven't already done it. That is nothing more than a pure use of the laws to promote an agenda.

Why shouldn't Boy Scouts pay taxes?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Indigo5
(2) Choose not hear the appeal...Which allows them to not rule on the legitimacy or illegitimacy of Gay Marriage at the federal level, neither coming out for it or against it.

This option would require at least one of the liberal justices to elect not to hear the case as well.

Correct...and a good option as it leaves the States rulings allowing gay Marriage in place. If the tide was moving in a different direction, the Liberal justices might have felt differently.

originally posted by: itguysrule
I strongly oppose gay marriage.

It's not "gay" marriage --- it's marriage equality. EQUAL --- same rights for everyone.

"Most . . . .people . . . .?

Gays are individuals. They are not a group think.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: itguysrule
I strongly oppose gay marriage.

It's not "gay" marriage --- it's marriage equality. EQUAL --- same rights for everyone.

Cool. Same rights for everyone would include me too. You do whatever you want and leave me alone to do as I choose.

originally posted by: itguysrule
Cool. Same rights for everyone would include me too. You do whatever you want and leave me alone to do as I choose.

The same rights for everyone does not mean that you do as you wish and I do as I wish, it means we are both held to the SAME standard and follow the SAME laws.

Allowing that a business (or marriage law) pertain to one group and not the other is the exact opposite of equality.

originally posted by: itguysrule

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: itguysrule
I strongly oppose gay marriage.

It's not "gay" marriage --- it's marriage equality. EQUAL --- same rights for everyone.

Cool. Same rights for everyone would include me too. You do whatever you want and leave me alone to do as I choose.

If you are a straight person, you already have all the legal rights and benefits of marriage. And no one is forcing you to marry someone of the same gender, so you're good.

originally posted by: itguysrule
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

My problem is with discrimination laws being used to promote an anti-religious agenda. How am I harming someone if I refuse to bake a cake for them? REALLY? Just get your cake somewhere else!

You are not obligated to bake a cake for them? If you are running a business however, selling cakes, then you can not discriminate who you sell to based on gender, race, religion etc. In the above scenario you have conflated religion with business/commerce. Requiring businesses not to discriminate does not interfere with that business unless the business is practicing religion as a product or service...where-upon they would need to change their financial filings and practices to reflect the same.

That bakery owner is well within his rights to practice any religion he chooses, hell..he could lead a local KKK branch and still be within his rights..but once he practices his religion at the cash register, the government has a right to ensure discrimination is not taking place.


Business does not = church and vice-versa....two well defined and different entities legally and otherwise.

Pretty cut and dry IMO, not sure why people continue to conflate the two for rhetorical purposes?

originally posted by: itguysrule

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: itguysrule
I strongly oppose gay marriage.

It's not "gay" marriage --- it's marriage equality. EQUAL --- same rights for everyone.

Cool. Same rights for everyone would include me too. You do whatever you want and leave me alone to do as I choose.

How does a gay couple getting married affect you? It doesn't.

As I've explained in the past, my mom was disabled with polio from the '52 epidemic. The Disability Act became law 38 years later.

This actually personally affected me, because we were refused admittance and kicked out of businesses ----- just because my mom used crutches.

You choosing to live in a protected cloistered world ----- is not an Equal Rights issue. It's personally yours.

The federal government has no place being in marriage in the first place. Married people should not being getting any tax breaks. It is outdated practice, like alimoney, a holdover from when a woman couldn't get a job even if she wanted to.

a reply to: Indigo5

I'm glad you were against businesses refusing to serve people or even allow people entry to their business who had firearms on their person then.

originally posted by: TKDRL
The federal government has no place being in marriage in the first place. Married people should not being getting any tax breaks. It is outdated practice, like alimoney, a holdover from when a woman couldn't get a job even if she wanted to.

I find it really annoying when posters bring this issue into the Marriage Equality discussion.

Whether or not there should be government marriage is a completely different discussion.

originally posted by: Rodinus

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: Rodinus

I think he was joking Rod...

Whoops...... Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhh I have a crap sense of humour probably?

Sorrryyyyyyyyyyy Oolaru.... *looks around sheepishly before traipsing off dragging his feet behind himself*

Kindest respects

Rod

No problem amigo....

Sarcasm in print is hard to convey. And if anyone wants to marry their iguana; as long as it's mutual consent, they have my blessings.

I've seen this issue for many decades. It's been going in the right direction, this is another example. I can't wait for it to be done and done. Soon. It's inevitable in a society that values "rights". The remaining few will go kicking and screaming but it won't stop it.

originally posted by: [post=18501334]Benevolent Heretic

But if you owned a bakery and were asked to bake a cake for a customer, the personal life of that customer is none of your concern.

If I owned a bakery and refused service to a customer my reason should be none of their concern or any concern of the courts.

Would it harm you if you went into a business and they refused to serve you because you're religious? What if they're the only one in town?

I would take my business elsewhere and quit whining.

I don't think they want churches to pay taxes because they don't toe a line. Churches have become VERY political in nature and I think that's why many think they should pay taxes.

It is true that some churches have become political in nature but I still think the liberal agenda is to do whatever can be done to weaken churches. Since many churches oppose the liberal agenda they must be destroyed regardless of whatever good they may do.

Why shouldn't Boy Scouts pay taxes?

As a community service organization the Boy Scouts operate using donated funds and volunteer efforts. Taxing charitable donations only siphons away funds that could be used for the operation of the organization. Unless, of course, your agenda is to punish or destroy an organization then taxing them makes perfect sense.

a reply to: Annee
Screw marriage equality. How about just equality? Get rid of the tax perks that discriminate against single people. Fighting for marriage equality is not fighting for equality at all, it's fighting to get in on the inequality already present.

It would be like if instead of fighting to end slavery, people fought to allow the slavery of every race instead of just getting rid of the practice of slavery. So black people could take white slaves too, instead of freeing the black slaves.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Indigo5

I'm glad you were against businesses refusing to serve people or even allow people entry to their business who had firearms on their person then.

Yes...Cuz choosing to carry a gun into a day-care center is just like being black, gay or Christian...

When was the last time someone massacred people in a movie theater or mall, robbed a store, or simply accidentally shot someone using only their religion, ethnicity or gender?

a reply to: Indigo5

People kill based on gender, ethnicity, religion every day.

Then again, I suppose it's okay to discriminate "sometimes".

originally posted by: beezzer
I'm glad you were against businesses refusing to serve people or even allow people entry to their business who had firearms on their person then.

Firearms are not US citizens and are not owed "rights". It's perfectly legal to discriminate against firearms by not allowing them on business premises. Same with dogs, backpacks and dirty clothes. Businesses have the right to disallow these non-citizen items.