SCOTUS strikes down ban on gay marriage

[Balog]

Why that and not the baker example?

Religious freedom ends if you own a business apparently.

[De Selby]

It seems like we've settled on the risk of some Christians being forced to countenance gays at their businesses being the only remotely plausible argument against the new decision.

In response I'll point out that there are racist churches doing fine right this moment - no blacks allowed.  The people who are so worried about gays asking for religious or business services can maybe just reach out to them and copy their model for practicing discrimination in the post 14th amendment world.  That freedom is still definitely available.

In every day life, marriage is legally important to couples.  There are rights they get that aren't obtainable by other means.  To deny it to gays means they are in fact disadvantaged compared to other couples, and I can't see any good reason why that should be.

The "government interest in procreation" and the dictionary combined do not amount to anything more than a restatement of old prejudices.  I'm happy not having the bible be my law.

[Andiron]

The "government interest in procreation" and the dictionary combined do not amount to anything more than a restatement of old prejudices.  I'm happy not having the bible be my law.

So, which completely Gay tolerant,  modern religion do you subscribe to?

[MechAg94]

It seems like we've settled on the risk of some Christians being forced to countenance gays at their businesses being the only remotely plausible argument against the new decision.

In response I'll point out that there are racist churches doing fine right this moment - no blacks allowed.  The people who are so worried about gays asking for religious or business services can maybe just reach out to them and copy their model for practicing discrimination in the post 14th amendment world.  That freedom is still definitely available.

In every day life, marriage is legally important to couples.  There are rights they get that aren't obtainable by other means.  To deny it to gays means they are in fact disadvantaged compared to other couples, and I can't see any good reason why that should be.

The "government interest in procreation" and the dictionary combined do not amount to anything more than a restatement of old prejudices.  I'm happy not having the bible be my law.

Now you drag racism into this argument.  How many different unrelated topics have you dragged into this thread so far?  

See if you can drag Star Wars into this also...or maybe adoption.  

[SADShooter]

So, which completely Gay tolerant,  modern religion do you subscribe to?

My money's on Cthuhlu or FSM worship.

[Andiron]

See if you can drag Star Wars into this also...or maybe adoption.   

 

My money's on Cthuhlu or FSM worship.

  Sanctimony included at no extra charge.

[BlueStarLizzard]

seriously? WTH?

why can't you guys stop with the low and nasty?

[Ron]

Hey look BSL, DeSelby is using your tactic of attempts at shaming 

Besides the shared antipathy for historic Christian values he also kind of likes the wide latitude the 14th gives government, just like you 

[BlueStarLizzard]

Hey look BSL, DeSelby is using your tactic of attempts at shaming 

Besides the shared antipathy for historic Christian values he also kind of likes the wide latitude the 14th gives government, just like you 

Yeah, good for you. Real Christian of you to join in on this impolite behavior.

[Ron]

Yeah, good for you. Real Christian of you to join in on this impolite behavior.

Just an observation; what was impolite?

If you were to ask DeSelby about me he would probably be hard pressed to recall any time I've attacked him personally. I always attempt to stay on topic and answer his points.   

[MechAg94]

seriously? WTH?

why can't you guys stop with the low and nasty?

I dislike his methods.  Trying to drag racism or mistreatment of women into an argument when neither applies.  You can decide for yourself why.  He might as well come out and ask "when did you stop beating your wife"?  I like the seeing his arguments on different topics, but sometimes it is like watching the Ancient Aliens or UFO guys on cable.  

That and I really didn't see it as impolite.  Just a joke really.  I saw the picture earlier and decided it was as good a time as any to drag it in.  

[Perd Hapley]

No surprise there, equal right for everyone.

One thing to expect is a lot more fanatical Republican candidates tanking elections for the GOP.

Maybe. We're going to see plenty of Republicans embrace this fanatical new ruling. I don't know how much it will hurt them, just yet.

[De Selby]

Just an observation; what was impolite?

If you were to ask DeSelby about me he would probably be hard pressed to recall any time I've attacked him personally. I always attempt to stay on topic and answer his points.   

I don't think you have attacked me at all and we've actually developed a bit of info here about our respective positions.

I brought up racism because it's the most obvious example of people being free to practice their religion despite 14th amendment rulings prohibiting legal bias.  It's proof that the fears about being forced to have gay weddings are overblown.  

[BlueStarLizzard]

I dislike his methods.  Trying to drag racism or mistreatment of women into an argument when neither applies.  You can decide for yourself why.  He might as well come out and ask "when did you stop beating your wife"?  I like the seeing his arguments on different topics, but sometimes it is like watching the Ancient Aliens or UFO guys on cable.  

That and I really didn't see it as impolite.  Just a joke really.  I saw the picture earlier and decided it was as good a time as any to drag it in.  

Well, when did you stop beating your wife?

And Ron, obviously, I was not amused. Don't play dumb. My " antipathy" is not for historical Christian values. It is for those who are deluded into thinking I, or anyone else, should abide by them, regardless of personal beliefs.

[zxcvbob]

It seems like we've settled on the risk of some Christians being forced to countenance gays at their businesses being the only remotely plausible argument against the new decision.

Isn't a Christian baker or photographer or clergy being forced to participate in a ceremony they find morally repugnant enough of a reason?  Just one.  And it's not like they are the only baker or photographer or clergyman available, gay activists are seeking out ones that will be hurt by this, and taking them to court to punish them for their deeply-held religious beliefs.

[Perd Hapley]

The bible (or more properly, beliefs about the bible which bear little to no relationship to its authors' beliefs) is/are not a sound basis for law making.  The framers didn't write canonical laws into the constitution for a reason - many of them weren't even Christian.  You don't have to be a Christian to enjoy rights.

I'm happy not having the bible be my law.

This is the trolling we're talking about.

Until DeSelby, no one in this thread said anything about the Bible defining marriage (because that's irrelevant). DeSelby brought it up several pages ago, and got someone to take that position (thanks, TommyGunn). So he introduced the topic just to use it as a straw man. He's been told very plainly why the Bible can't be credited with the heterosexuality of marriage traditions around the world, but he keeps going on about it. Here we are, six pages later. At some point, it's plain dishonesty.

But, again, lies work.

[Perd Hapley]

Well, when did you stop beating your wife?

And Ron, obviously, I was not amused. Don't play dumb. My " antipathy" is not for historical Christian values. It is for those who are deluded into thinking I, or anyone else, should abide by them, regardless of personal beliefs.

So if the government doesn't recognize your lesbian wedding, that would be telling you to abide by Christian values? You realize that could happen in a whole lot of not-remotely-Christian countries, right?

[cordex]

I brought up racism because it's the most obvious example of people being free to practice their religion despite 14th amendment rulings prohibiting legal bias.  It's proof that the fears about being forced to have gay weddings are overblown.  

Right.  I am sure that was the reason you brought it up.   

We are not far from churches that are open to anyone being declared public accommodations.  Also pretty sure that if a black or mixed couple with a lawyer really wanted to make trouble for a racist church they could do so. Are you aware of any case law regarding racist churches turning away black wedding parties or something similar, or is this a largely untested arena?

Finally, I seem to recall a black-owned bakery in ... Georgia maybe? ... that was sued by the KKK to force them to bake a Klan cake. That seems to be more analogous and equally repugnant to me.  So, De Selby, why do you support the Klan?   

[BlueStarLizzard]

So if the government doesn't recognize your lesbian wedding, that would be telling you to abide by Christian values? You realize that could happen in a whole lot of not-remotely-Christian countries, right?

You do realize this ISN'T any of those countries or a Christian one either, right?

Government is not the church. I could honestly care less what any church says about my big lesbian wedding. I care what the Government says about it, especially if they are handing out marriage licenses to straight folk.

[Ron]

I don't think you have attacked me at all and we've actually developed a bit of info here about our respective positions.

I brought up racism because it's the most obvious example of people being free to practice their religion despite 14th amendment rulings prohibiting legal bias.  It's proof that the fears about being forced to have gay weddings are overblown.  

Dragging racism into this is like breaking Godwins law, everyone rolls their eyes.

Even if the race reference was applicable (it's not) it was still guaranteed to be dismissed out of hand as a shaming tactic.

I hope you are correct about the protection of churches but I'm afraid you are wrong. There is blood in the water. Obama the natural ally is only in office for a short period of time and there is a real concern on the left a Republican will replace him. Now is the time to strike the death blow to the religious rights power base (churches) and fracture the Republicans further.  

[Perd Hapley]

It seems like we've settled on the risk of some Christians being forced to countenance gays at their businesses being the only remotely plausible argument against the new decision.

In the real world, the ACLU no longer favors RFRA.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/congress-should-amend-the-abused-religious-freedom-restoration-act/2015/06/25/ee6aaa46-19d8-11e5-ab92-c75ae6ab94b5_story.html

Also in the real world, the U.S. Solicitor General has conjectured that some churches might lose tax-exempt status over this.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/04/28/could-religious-institutions-lose-tax-exempt-status-over-supreme-courts-gay-marriage-case/

But other than that, and other such examples already brought up in this thread, it's just the hyperventilating of conservatives.

[Perd Hapley]

You do realize this ISN'T any of those countries or a Christian one either, right?

Government is not the church. I could honestly care less what any church says about my big lesbian wedding. I care what the Government says about it, especially if they are handing out marriage licenses to straight folk.

I'm sorry you were unable to process what I said. Please feel free to come back and think about it later. I think you'll eventually get it.

[Ron]

You do realize this ISN'T any of those countries or a Christian one either, right?

Government is not the church. I could honestly care less what any church says about my big lesbian wedding. I care what the Government says about it, especially if they are handing out marriage licenses to straight folk.

Since marriage is between a man and woman it makes sense that they would "hand them out" to straight couples.

[Doggy Daddy]

Mocking the mods usually doesn't end well.

No, but modding the mocs could be a new business model for Monkeyleg.

[BlueStarLizzard]

I'm sorry you were unable to process what I said. Please feel free to come back and think about it later. I think you'll eventually get it.

No, I get it. I really actually do get it. You do, too. You just will not let it go.

If I want my relationship validated by the State, and the State refuses due to the sex of my partner while validating others because of the sex of their partners, then the State is not providing equal services to me. Which is the problem.
Religion has no input into this conversation except for the fact that people like you find the State granting LBGT equal marriage rights to be offensive.

It's not the Government forcing Christian values, it's the Christains using the force of the Government to uphold Christian values.