Same Sex Marriage Thread - Part III

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
The transgender complaint is a bit off too. As far as I am aware female loos tend to be all cubicles and of those transgender people I know they are not exactly going to wander through a locker room naked but remain behind a curtain or a cubicle, unless you equate transgender people with sexual predators sneaking into toilets. Though at least in the UK, they are more likely to be the victim of a sexual assault than the rest of the general population.

How meaningful is your sex to anything, other than reproduction? Gender is different to your biological sex and the purpose of us on the left is not that it is meaningless or inconsequential, why else would transgender people get so rightfully upset at people treating them like shit for feeling like a different gender to their sex? Gender remains an important part of our identities hence the offence at those that belittle it.

Anyway as others have said this is bugger all to do with SSM and gender.



i want to say that i really appreciate this post.

there's little question that Trans people are, perhaps, the social group most likely to experience violence. sometimes at rates double that of even gays and lesbians.

and then we have conservatives, like the ones that INDY is echoing, who turn around and pretend that they are monsters, freaks, and threats to children. even trans children are threats to children.

dear god, you'd think a modicum of compassion is in order. it's incredibly sad. instead, we hear people using SSM not only to call children freaks, but to blame gay people for subjecting children to threats by these so-called freaks.

but, as has been stated, none of this has anything to do with SSM.
 
This is part of what Irvine511 posted of the judge's ruling:
"Respondents have no free speech right to refuse because they were only asked to bake a cake, not make a speech."

I think the judge is wrong.

Is art considered free speech?

I have heard freedom of speech related to free expression of art all my life. All of us here have.

Indy500 posted that Mr. Phillips, the baker was ready to bake the couple cakes, muffins, cookies, or whatever.

It was when they specified what the cake was for and they wanted the plastic figures on top of the cake to be the same gender, that is when Phillips kindly told them that because of religious convictions he could not bake the cake.

Masterpiece Cakeshop is the name of his bakery and he has always considered his creations works of art. I think all of us here have also heard decorated edible food as works of art.

The couple instead of simply going up the street to another bakery(there are dozens in the city) were in a lawyer's office within an hour.




could he have cited his "religious convictions" and refused to bake a cake at an interracial wedding?
 
could he have cited his "religious convictions" and refused to bake a cake at an interracial wedding?

I don't believe he could and from what I've read on Mr. Phillips, I don't think he would. I'll try to google it and see if I can find any examples.

Phillips views his works as art (an expression of speech) and he does not want to expresses something that goes against his convictions. That I think, makes this different from using interracial marriage as an objection.
 
I stand by my statement. I meant that the traditional view of marriage as being between persons of the opposite sex has been a long held understanding
throughout history.

I replied to your question.

Now could you reply to my question about art being a free expression of art and your thought on edible creative foods being an expression of art?

Thank you

Well now you're changing your story. Your statement was incorrect. Period.

As an artist could a klansman claim religious belief and refuse his services to Jews and black people?

Hell why can't we just claim religious beliefs to refuse service against anyone we don't like? You come in and want your car serviced because you broke down, but I consider my auto work as art, and my religion says science deniers are sinful, I should be able to deny you and keep you stranded, right?
 
I don't believe he could and from what I've read on Mr. Phillips, I don't think he would. I'll try to google it and see if I can find any examples.



Phillips views his works as art (an expression of speech) and he does not want to expresses something that goes against his convictions. That I think, makes this different from using interracial marriage as an objection.



You're right. Legally can't. And he can't for the same reason he can't oppose a SSM -- it's a violation of Colorado law. You won't find examples either -- we can't refuse to sell products to people because of their race.

I was asking you to imagine that he has a religious objection to interracial marriage. The "work of art" applies in this situation, and the question remains: do you think a religious objection is sufficient grounds to deny a cake from an interracial couple. Perhaps the baker might love them individually, he's not a racist, he'd bake a cake for a birthday, but he simply opposes interracial marriage because of religion and because he thinks that life is difficult for mixed race children.
 
Well now you're changing your story. Your statement was incorrect. Period.

As an artist could a klansman claim religious belief and refuse his services to Jews and black people?

Hell why can't we just claim religious beliefs to refuse service against anyone we don't like? You come in and want your car serviced because you broke down, but I consider my auto work as art, and my religion says science deniers are sinful, I should be able to deny you and keep you stranded, right?


Please post the part I changed. Quote me.

The artistic klansman? Please post a real case.

And your artistic car garage...I guess I would be left stranded. :sad:

But no worries...I wouldn't sue.
 
Please post the part I changed. Quote me.

The artistic klansman? Please post a real case.

And your artistic car garage...I guess I would be left stranded. :sad:

But no worries...I wouldn't sue.

You said it's never been changed, you didn't put qualifiers. Don't play dumb, any thinking man knows that the definition of modern day marriage is far different from the arranged polygamy marriages of the Bible.

Oh now all of a sudden you want real cases? You and Indy's doomsday reasoning is based entirely on make believe bullshit. Play by your own rules.
 
I don't believe he could and from what I've read on Mr. Phillips, I don't think he would. I'll try to google it and see if I can find any examples.

Phillips views his works as art (an expression of speech) and he does not want to expresses something that goes against his convictions. That I think, makes this different from using interracial marriage as an objection.

Imagine if phillips was a fervent racist. Would his work and the expression of 'art' as you call it, still count higher if he refused to bake a cake for a black couple's wedding?
 
How is that the same thing? Nazism is a choice. Homosexuality is not. Jesus Christ.

Know what else is a choice? Not being tolerant of the long-held traditional religious beliefs of others. Or is tolerance a one-way street?
Know what else is a choice? Taking a small business to court when multiple alternate venues are willing to provide the same service.
 
'Now exists'?

:laugh:

Yes, it's totally a big joke. Transgender people have such easy lives. Ha ha ha.
 
Know what else is a choice? Not being tolerant of the long-held traditional religious beliefs of others. Or is tolerance a one-way street?

Know what else is a choice? Taking a small business to court when multiple alternate venues are willing to provide the same service.
No idea what your point is. Dude broke a law in Colorado and no one would make a fuss about whether it should have been reported if it was discrimination against any other type of minority group. You're picking this fight because your deluded bullshit has spit out a made up agenda about feminizing young boys. That is crystal clear.
 
Serious question to any libertarians:

If you support same-sex marriage on libertarian grounds is it at all consistent with that belief that the heavy-hand of government be used to force individuals to act against their religious convictions?
 
Know what else is a choice? Not being tolerant of the long-held traditional religious beliefs of others. Or is tolerance a one-way street?

Know what else is a choice? Taking a small business to court when multiple alternate venues are willing to provide the same service.



Your religious prejudices don't trump my civil rights.

This crap about "tolerate my intolerance" is a total canard.

All that said, I'd go to another baker.

But this baker is legally wrong.
 
Serious question to any libertarians:

If you support same-sex marriage on libertarian grounds is it at all consistent with that belief that the heavy-hand of government be used to force individuals to act against their religious convictions?



Your religious convictions do not trump my civil rights.

Your religious convictions might tell you that you should murder your daughter if she has sex before marriage. But you're not allowed to murder your daughter.

Is this actually hard to grasp? You're ever vigilant about encroaching Sharia Law. Isn't that a two-way street? Or do only Christians get to play American Taliban?
 
Know what else is a choice? Not being tolerant of the long-held traditional religious beliefs of others. Or is tolerance a one-way street?
Know what else is a choice? Taking a small business to court when multiple alternate venues are willing to provide the same service.

I am very tolerant of the religious beliefs of others. I'll never force a Jew or a Muslim to eat pork or a Christian to do something their religion forbids. I am completely fine with religious person doing whatever their religion dictates, AS LONG as they a. do not force it onto me, and b. don't harm others in the process.


But tolerance, as you say, isn't supposed to be a one-way street. When are you going to start seeing that I'm not the intolerant one, but that you are forcing your beliefs onto me when I do not share them? I am not asking you to share my beliefs, I just want some civil rights. That is all. You don't have to agree with them you know. Nobody is forcing you to accept that people are gay. Belief is in my opinion something personal. Something YOU believe, not something YOu feel forced to force onto others. There is a reason why there is a separation between church and state.
 
And any same-sex marriage in Colorado is "legally wrong" as well but my guess is your call for strict adherence to Colorado jurisprudence is not uniform.



this is a great point.

that actually makes the baker's actions worse and weakens his case -- he really was just refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple because they were gay. they weren't even getting really married. he wouldn't have been forced to "violate" anything.

also, a "wedding cake" doesn't have a legal status. it's not a marriage certificate. we could have stayed in Virginia, thrown a "wedding" there and ordered a real wedding cake from a real wedding cake bakery, and the wedding would have no actual legal consequence. legally, it would have been a wedding cake served at some party.
 
and please feel free to address the example of refusing to bake a wedding cake for an interracial couple.

remember:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.
 
Libertarianism always seems a coded way of saying "why can't we be racist, sexist, homophobic and anti the poor anymore?"
 
Your religious convictions do not trump my civil rights.
I don't believe there is a civil right that recognizes "equality" between any and all arrangements wishing to be defined as a marriage. I can find the Free Exercise of Religion clause in the U.S. Constitution however.
Your religious convictions might tell you that you should murder your daughter if she has sex before marriage. But you're not allowed to murder your daughter.

You're right. It's not like "religious conscience" is a last-ditch effort for homophobic bigots to discriminate against homosexuals. It has conflicted with laws before (peyote, the military draft, and the current HHS rules mandating contraceptive coverage coming to mind) and no less than the evil Antonin Scalia has ruled there is no constitutional entitlement to exemption from applicable laws with a clear and compelling government interest.

So worry not, murder or human sacrifice cannot be plea bargained down with religious conviction. No one is lobbying for the anarchy of blanket religious immunity. But neither should the government nor courts impose activities against the religious beliefs of individuals when not necessary. Need every thought or deed found offensive be criminalized?

Are you aware the federal government exempted the religious use of alcohol during Prohibition? Are you familiar with the long held use of "conduct exemptions" in legislation or with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act signed into law by Bill Clinton?

Is this actually hard to grasp? You're ever vigilant about encroaching Sharia Law. Isn't that a two-way street?

I'm vigilant against Sharia Law because it cannot exist within a democracy or constitutional republic. Islamists that seek to impose Sharia Law say as much because they recognize no law but sharia (God-given) Law. Ideology prevents a two-way street from existing.
Or do only Christians get to play American Taliban?

The relativism that goes into a statement like that is fathomless. Choosing not to participate in a same-sex marriage = stoning homosexuals to death. Wow.
 
Nobody is telling you to participate in a same sex marriage. Leave that to the gay people. All you have to do is accept they are human and stop denying them basic human rights.
 
and please feel free to address the example of refusing to bake a wedding cake for an interracial couple.

remember:

I find nothing in the Bible to support anti-miscegenation laws. And, as I've said before, I don't think discrimination based on skin color in marriage is in any way analogous to discrimination based on sex. Skin color has nothing to do with marriage; gender does. Bride-groom, wife-husband, mother-father.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom