The Gay Thread

[Irvine511]

I love trick questions.

The answer of course is that if they ever stopped they'd no longer be liberal, activist judges.

Is there any state that's safe?

 

[INDY500]

Southern Democrats. Who became Republicans after -- not surprisingly -- the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Yes, the more Republican the south became the less racist it became, thanks for validating my point.


By the way, the south turned Red, not because of hand-me-down racism, but because of Republicans fleeing the taxes and unions of the northeast and Rust Belt and because air conditioning made the South more habitable.
You can look that up to.

 

[Irvine511]

Yes, the more Republican the south became the less racist it became, thanks for validating my point.


By the way, the south turned Red, not because of hand-me-down racism, but because of Republicans fleeing the taxes and unions of the northeast and Rust Belt and because air conditioning made the South more habitable.
You can look that up to.

Stop for a moment. Put the revisionism aside. Continue to ignore Nixon.

Are you really contending, in 2014, that there is less racism in the GOP than in the Democraric Party?

If you were a racist, which party would you vote for?

(Also, could it be that the judges aren't liberal or activist but simply Constituonally correct? There's been a lot of judges in a lot of different states in a lot of different courts appointed by a lot of different presidents who have arrived at the same understanding that marriage amendments are unconstitutional).

 

[LuckyNumber7]

Wow, you really think highly of your fellow countrymen don't you? A nation of bigots rather than the most tolerant nation on earth.

What does that even mean? Where did I say any of that? But, for what it's worth, we definitely don't live in the most tolerant nation on earth. Nice try.

C'mon, the Arizona bill is kinda soft on the genocide of gays.

Maybe you should read up on Nazism. There's a little more to it than just genocide. It's a social hierarchy where they believe Jews are morally greedy, wrong individuals who are responsible for their problems. Genocide followed that.

Do you know how we got to this point? The proponents of SSM did not heed the warning of the Vertigo Tour and "became a monster to kill the monster." That's how we got here.

Again... WHAT ARE YOU SAYING? You don't make any sense at all.

Reread the First Amendment and tell me what it says about the free exercise of religion.

Okay, I did just that. This is what is says.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Hmm. Seems like making laws favoring establishment of religion is unconstitutional. You know, the whole... separation of church and state thing...

 

[Diemen]

"Those in control of this state need to stop fighting the future. They must stop governing by fear. They must stop pretending there’s some security blanket in laws that treat others unfairly,” – Texas Senate Democratic Caucus Chairman Kirk Watson.

 

[PhilsFan]

My mother is a conservative (or independent I guess but tends to lean conservative) but is rather non-plussed by all of this. I told her about the Arizona veto and she just said, "Man, things are really picking up steam with the gay rights stuff, huh?"

 

[Irvine511]

Do you know how we got to this point? The proponents of SSM did not heed the warning of the Vertigo Tour and "became a monster to kill the monster." That's how we got here.

blaming the victim? how conservative.

Reread the First Amendment and tell me what it says about the free exercise of religion.

this should be helpful:

It seems like this election season "religious liberty" is a hot topic. Rumors of its demise are all around, as are politicians who want to make sure that you know they will never do anything to intrude upon it.

I'm a religious person with a lifelong passion for civil rights, so this is of great interest to me. So much so, that I believe we all need to determine whether our religious liberties are indeed at risk. So, as a public service, I've come up with this little quiz. I call it "How to Determine if Your Religious Liberty Is Being Threatened in Just 10 Quick Questions." Just pick "A" or "B" for each question.

1. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to go to a religious service of my own choosing.
B) Others are allowed to go to religious services of their own choosing.

2. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to marry the person I love legally, even though my religious community blesses my marriage.
B) Some states refuse to enforce my own particular religious beliefs on marriage on those two guys in line down at the courthouse.

3. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am being forced to use birth control.
B) I am unable to force others to not use birth control.

4. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to pray privately.
B) I am not allowed to force others to pray the prayers of my faith publicly.

5. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) Being a member of my faith means that I can be bullied without legal recourse.
B) I am no longer allowed to use my faith to bully gay kids with impunity.

6. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to purchase, read or possess religious books or material.
B) Others are allowed to have access books, movies and websites that I do not like.

7. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) My religious group is not allowed equal protection under the establishment clause.
B) My religious group is not allowed to use public funds, buildings and resources as we would like, for whatever purposes we might like.

8. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) Another religious group has been declared the official faith of my country.
B) My own religious group is not given status as the official faith of my country.

9. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) My religious community is not allowed to build a house of worship in my community.
B) A religious community I do not like wants to build a house of worship in my community.

10. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to teach my children the creation stories of our faith at home.
B) Public school science classes are teaching science.

Scoring key:

If you answered "A" to any question, then perhaps your religious liberty is indeed at stake. You and your faith group have every right to now advocate for equal protection under the law. But just remember this one little, constitutional, concept: this means you can fight for your equality -- not your superiority.

If you answered "B" to any question, then not only is your religious liberty not at stake, but there is a strong chance that you are oppressing the religious liberties of others. This is the point where I would invite you to refer back to the tenets of your faith, especially the ones about your neighbors.

In closing, no matter what soundbites you hear this election year, remember this: Religious liberty is never secured by a campaign of religious superiority. The only way to ensure your own religious liberty remains strong is by advocating for the religious liberty of all, including those with whom you may passionately disagree. Because they deserve the same rights as you. Nothing more. Nothing less.

How to Determine If Your Religious Liberty Is Being Threatened in Just 10 Quick Questions | Rev. Emily C. Heath

 

[martha]

Wow. That is so awesome.

 

[martha]

Yes, the more Republican the south became the less racist it became, thanks for validating my point.

Wow. He believes this?

(I use the third person because Indy has me on ignore, as far as I can tell.)

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I was going to shrug most of it off, until I was humorously told to brush up my reading on the first amendment. The actual language in it really makes me wonder how such a law needed to even be vetoed. It's a clear violation of the idea of separation of religious establishment and government by having a law that allows you to invoke your religious belief on others to their disadvantage.

 

[INDY500]

I was going to shrug most of it off, until I was humorously told to brush up my reading on the first amendment. The actual language in it really makes me wonder how such a law needed to even be vetoed.

It's a clear violation of the idea of separation of religious establishment and government by having a law that allows you to invoke your religious belief on others to their disadvantage.

You do understand that the Bill of Rights are restrictions on the power of government right? Empowering individuals or private entities to act in accordance with their individual religious conscience is the complete opposite of the iron fist of government compelling an individual or private entity to act against those beliefs.

Hysterical critics would have you believe the bill was an imprimatur for legal discrimination when in fact it only restores or restates the sovereignty of the individual regarding religious conscience. Oh no!!

Jim Crow laws were state sanctioned, top-down laws of discrimination. This bill had completely the opposite effect.

 

[Diemen]

Jim Crow laws were state sanctioned, top-down laws of discrimination. This bill had completely the opposite effect.

Question: If a state government passes a bill that allows people to discriminate against others based on their religious conscience, how is that any different than a state sanctioned, top-down law of discrimination?

 

[LuckyNumber7]

You do understand that the Bill of Rights are restrictions on the power of government right? Empowering individuals or private entities to act in accordance with their individual religious conscience is the complete opposite of the iron fist of government compelling an individual or private entity to act against those beliefs.

Hysterical critics would have you believe the bill was an imprimatur for legal discrimination when in fact it only restores or restates the sovereignty of the individual regarding religious conscience. Oh no!!

Jim Crow laws were state sanctioned, top-down laws of discrimination. This bill had completely the opposite effect.

I'm still waiting for you to give me a logical response on using religion to cease service to other religions.

 

[Irvine511]

You do understand that the Bill of Rights are restrictions on the power of government right? Empowering individuals or private entities to act in accordance with their individual religious conscience is the complete opposite of the iron fist of government compelling an individual or private entity to act against those beliefs.

against government intrusion, yes, but you cannot use your religious beliefs to take away the rights of other citizens.

the government cannot tell you how to practice your religion unless it goes against the law (i.e., a cop cannot refuse to respond to domestic violence even though his religion might tell him that husbands must beat their wives). however, it is against the law to use your religious practices to limit the rights of others.

 

[Irvine511]

Jim Crow laws were state sanctioned, top-down laws of discrimination. This bill had completely the opposite effect.

and this would have been state sanctioned, top-down laws enabling business owners to say, "we don't serve your kind here," so long as it was a "religious belief."

 

[LuckyNumber7]

and this would have been state sanctioned, top-down laws enabling business owners to say, "we don't serve your kind here," so long as it was a "religious belief."

As it stands, religion is nothing more than a personal belief with a fancy label. Hence the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I'm having a really hard time, still, from splitting this law as a classical example of nazism (and no not genocide, don't try that one again). It claims "you are what is wrong in society, and therefore you shall be treated as inferior to fix this."

But you know what, hopefully if such a law were ever enacted, a rise in satanism and spaghetti monsterism (if you will) prove to you just how wrong such a law is.

 

[Galeongirl]

Wow, you really think highly of your fellow countrymen don't you? A nation of bigots rather than the most tolerant nation on earth.

Which nation are you talking about here? I thought you lived in the US.....

 

[digitize]

against government intrusion, yes, but you cannot use your religious beliefs to take away the rights of other citizens.

The theory here is that no one has a right to receive services from a business. INDY does make a valid distinction: the government mandating discrimination is different from the government forcing businesses to not discriminate. Take that as you wish.

 

[PhilsFan]

There is a practical reason to refuse service to someone who isn't wearing pants. There is a practical reason to refuse service to someone who is intoxicated. There is no practical reason to refuse service to someone because they are different from you.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

I'd argue that even saying you won't serve someone for no reason is a better scenario.

 

[Galeongirl]

I just don't see why someone's religion is of any importance to the rest of the world. Why can people with certain religions get away with things, just 'because their religion says so'? Why would that have to be my problem? You go enjoy your religion, I'll enjoy mine. In Private. Who the hell am I to deny other human beings their rights because my personal religion doesn't agree with them?

 

[Irvine511]

Who the hell am I to deny other human beings their rights because my personal religion doesn't agree with them?

a conservative American Christian. the most important people on earth.

 

[INDY500]

Hate Speech by Anti-Gay Bigot | National Review Online

Hate Speech by Anti-Gay Bigot

By Senator Ted Kennedy

EDITOR’S NOTE: This is the text of Senator Ted Kennedy’s opening statement before the Committee on the Judiciary at the hearing on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, September 18, 1992, the model for the Arizona law which has been so controversial.

We will come to order. The brave pioneers who founded America came here in large part to escape religious tyranny and to practice their faiths free from government interference. The persecution they had suffered in the old world convinced them of the need to assure for all Americans for all time the right to practice their religion unencumbered by the yoke of religious tyranny.

That profound principle is embodied in the two great religion clauses of the first amendment, which provide that Congress “shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” But in 1990, the Supreme Court’s decision in Oregon Employment Division v. Smith produced a serious and unwarranted setback for the first amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion.

Before the Smith decision, Federal, State, and local governments were prohibited from interfering with people’s ability to practice their religion unless the restriction satisfied a difficult two-part test — first, that it was necessary to achieve a compelling government interest; and, second, that there was no less burdensome way to accomplish the goal.

The compelling interest test has been the legal standard protecting the free exercise of religion for nearly 30 years. Yet, in one fell swoop the Supreme Court overruled that test and declared that no special constitutional protection is available for religious liberty as long as the Federal, State, or local law in question is neutral on its face as to religion and is a law of general application. Under Smith, the Government no longer had to justify burdens on the free exercise of religion as long as these burdens are “merely the incidental effect of a generally applicable and otherwise valid provision.”

The Supreme Court did not have to go that far to reach its result in the Smith case. As Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote of the majority’s ruling in her eloquent and forceful opinion concurring in the result but criticizing the majority’s reasoning,

Today’s holding dramatically departs from well-settled first amendment jurispru dence, appears unnecessary to resolve the questions presented, and is incompatible with our Nation’s fundamental commitment to individual religious liberty.

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which Senator Hatch and I, and 23 other Senators have introduced, would restore the compelling interest test for evaluating free exercise claims. It would do so by establishing a statutory right that adopts the standards previously, used by the Supreme Court. In essence, the act codifies the requirement for the Government to demonstrate that any law burdening the free exercise of religion is essential to furthering a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of achieving that interest.

The act creates no new rights for any religious practice or for any potential litigant. Not every free exercise claim will prevail. It simply restores the long-established standard of review that had worked well for many years and that requires courts to weigh free exercise claims against the compelling State interest standard. Our bill is strongly supported by an extraordinary coalition of organizations with widely differing views on many other issues. The National Association of Evangelicals, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Coalitions for America, People for the American Way, just to name a few, support the legislation. They don’t often agree on much, but they do agree on the need to pass the Religious Freedom Restoration Act because religious freedom in America is damaged each day the Smith decision stands.

Today, the committee will hear compelling testimony about the destructive impact of the decision. We are fortunate to have a very distinguished group of witnesses and I look forward to their testimony.

Three things: This may be the first time National Review has promoted the words of Ted Kennedy. Two, the Arizona law simply echoed this act as well as expanded its own state law to include private entities rather than just individuals. And three, it show how radical and leftist the Democratic has become since 1992. The ACLU once supported what it now actively attacks in court. No national Democratic politician would support such legislation.

Gay rights über alles.

 

[Galeongirl]

Not uber alles, but it certainly should go against something that people are FREE to choose like Religion.


Religion is a choice.

Being gay is not.

Why should your personal choice have more value than my basic human rights?

 

[INDY500]

Not uber alles, but it certainly should go against something that people are FREE to choose like Religion.


Religion is a choice.

Being gay is not.

Why should your personal choice have more value than my basic human rights?

I've spoken previously about no room for discrimination in my field, medicine, but that isn't the issue; no one supports discrimination against gays. But an individual and an event are two separate things.
Read the details of these cases against florists, bakers, etc and you'll see that they serve gays with no hesitation, they only balk when asked to participate in a same-sex marriage.

If the government can force a baker to supply a cake against his religious beliefs why can't they compel a doctor to perform an abortion or a minister to rent out his worship hall?

 

[PhilsFan]

no one supports discrimination against gays.

Oh?

 

[martha]

Why even argue with Indy anymore? It's the same old same old. It's his hang-up.

 

[INDY500]

Religion is a choice.

Wow! There's a new topic here. While religion in a free society is a choice; once accepted isn't one then bound to act in accordance with that religion? If one hopes to glorify God in all they do can they knowingly participate or foster an activity which for thousands of years has been taught to be forbidden or unholy?

In a pluralistic society one accepts that they need not agree or sanction all individual activities to practice the Golden Rule knowing that visa-versa not everyone sanctions your beliefs. Translation; Tolerance needs to be a two-way street.

 

[Galeongirl]

I've spoken previously about no room for discrimination in my field, medicine, but that isn't the issue; no one supports discrimination against gays. But an individual and an event are two separate things.
Read the details of these cases against florists, bakers, etc and you'll see that they serve gays with no hesitation, they only balk when asked to participate in a same-sex marriage.

If the government can force a baker to supply a cake against his religious beliefs why can't they compel a doctor to perform an abortion or a minister to rent out his worship hall?

The government can force a baker because he's supposed to do his job. Bake a fucking cake. It's what you do.

Compelling a doctor to perform an abortion is in no way comparable due to the mental consequences it may cause for the doctor. This has nothing to do with religion, at all.
They can't compel a minister to rent out his worship hall, because that minister is, wa hey, doing his job. It's a house of religion, serving religious people.
And for the sake of me I would have no idea why a gay person would even want in a church when the people are oh so friendly towards them..... How did you even come up with that one?

 

[Irvine511]

Three things: This may be the first time National Review has promoted the words of Ted Kennedy. Two, the Arizona law simply echoed this act as well as expanded its own state law to include private entities rather than just individuals. And three, it show how radical and leftist the Democratic has become since 1992. The ACLU once supported what it now actively attacks in court. No national Democratic politician would support such legislation.

Gay rights über alles.

that's a lot of butt hurt for a straight guy.

the Arizona law took this 22 year old Act and took it to a level unimagined even back then. this isn't being able to make religious liberty claims against the government, it's about being able to make a religious liberty claim against other citizens in order to reduce their liberty. that's a big, big leap. no individual can coerce like the government, so that's why protection is necessary. but citizen to citizen?

and think about Arizona itself. gay people are already back-of-the-bus 2nd class citizens. they are denied the fundamental human right to marry. they have no hate crimes protection. and they can be fired merely for being gay. it is already very easy for a fundamentalist to brutally discriminate against a gay person. to argue that, really, it's the discriminator's rights that need to be expanded is absolutely perverse. it's silly to cliam that a group of millions of Americans who have traditionally been among the most marginalized among us, who have lived their lives in shadows, who live in fear, who often succumb to suicide or addition in order to cope with a hostile society, are suddenly the bullies because you can't discriminate against them without some blowback. standing up to a bully isn't bullying.

imagine, for a moment, that you're two guys driving a lonely Arizona highway. it's been a long hot day, you come across the one motel on a remote stretch of I-40. you ask for a room. "we don't rent rooms to faggots. it's against our religion."

you go to the only restaurant in that small town. "we don't serve your kind here. it's against our religion."

no food, no shelter. it's a lonely night out in the desert. cold too. the two of you wake up with hypothermia. you call 911. the EMTs arrive. they choose not to treat you because they believe that the wages of sin are death, and as sinners, God has done this to you so i can't interfere with his will to have you die of hyperthermia.

how in holy hell is any of that ok? it would all be made ok by that Arizona law.

your religious liberty ends at the moment it takes away my right to be a full citizen.