Arizona's anti-gay bill

[horses4courses]

What will Gov. Jan Brewer do?

http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/25/politics/arizona-brewer-anti-gay-bill/

[NJ Stinks]

Definitely veto it.

Too much pressure from big business to do otherwise.

[Steve 'StatMan']

I errered, voted Yes when I meant to vote No. Bake the darn wedding cakes, you don't have to mean the happy words you write in the icing - do you mean every happy word on stranger's birthday and anniversary cakes? Refusing to serve them is just bad business. Besides, these people have friends, family and co-workers in the community, GLBT or Straight, and some of them might want to use your services, so never miss a chance to impress.

Religious groups and insitutions and perahps religious goods businesses should probably be exempt. I don't think anyone should sell Bibles or Korans to people who one knows it intent on desecrating them. Or having religions being forced to marry same-sex couples when it is clearly against the religion. Peaceful people attending services for the intent of worshiping their God should be free to attend and welcomed.

[Steve 'StatMan']

I errered, voted Yes when I meant to vote No. Bake the darn wedding cakes, you don't have to mean the happy words you write in the icing - do you mean every happy word on stranger's birthday and anniversary cakes? Refusing to serve them is just bad business. Besides, these people have friends, family and co-workers in the community, GLBT or Straight, and some of them might want to use your services, so never miss a chance to impress.

Religious groups and insitutions and perahps religious goods businesses should probably be exempt. I don't think anyone should sell Bibles or Korans to people who one knows it intent on desecrating them. Or having religions being forced to marry same-sex couples when it is clearly against the religion. Peaceful people attending services for the intent of worshiping their God should be free to attend and welcomed.

Oops. No, I had it right the first time. Yes, I expect and hope her to VETO it, and not have it become their law. I'm getting confused by the double-negative that doesn't seem apparent without a careful reading.

[HUSKER55]

Are you guys REALLY going to let government decide how to run your business?
Are you really going to let them run your community?

Are they paying the bills? Did they put up cash?

Are you going to stand by and let them assault the church? If thats the case we could deport all Muslims for being anti gay?

Christians tolerate gays but won't marry them because of their beliefs.

Are you ready to let government run your beliefs?

[fast4522]

Personally I do not care what someone is or not. I figure that I do not have to see it. I believe in equal rights but not special rights, tough for some to figure that one out. If you feel others have to see it, then your looking for special rights and deserve absolutely nothing.

[Dahoss2002]

She should show some balls :lol: and not veto.

[Robert Goren]

She should but probably won't. I wonder what AZ legal bills are. It seems they are in court a lot and they don't seem to win very often. I also wonder how much things would change there if the people who winter there and summer up North voted in their elections.

[ArlJim78]

link to the bill, its very short. perhaps someone will point out the anti-gay provision it is supposed to contain.
http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf

[Tom]

There's a thought......I have not read it - can someone point to specifics?

[Robert Goren]

Get real! If it wasn't anti-gay, they wouldn't have passed it. No other point to a bill like this one. You can argue that it should be alright to discriminate against gays and they should have a bill like this, but lets not pretend it is about anything else.

[johnhannibalsmith]

She should but probably won't. I wonder what AZ legal bills are. ...

You don't pay very close attention for such a refined opinion. Brewer hasn't been interested in giving previous similar bills much attention and has killed them under the pretty concise label "not part of my agenda".

Aside from which - I'm pretty sure that the Big Boys in the party have already informed her how this will go down. The only ones rooting for this bill to pass more than the sponsor itself are opponents of the party. Her NOT vetoing this bill should be big old odds, so go get your money down.

As far as the legal bills for the state go... just don't include the bills to Maricopa County itself where we have the world's toughest/most expensive/celebrity geriatric politician badass Sheriff. :lol:

[jballscalls]

what happens to a Christian who makes a cake for a gay wedding? Do they go to hell? Do they feel bad because they made someone else happy? Do they get shamed by the church?

I mean, don't all of us serve customers everyday that we have serious issues with? I know I work around people everyday who I have massive fundamental differences with on tons of issues.

[Tom]

Get real! If it wasn't anti-gay, they wouldn't have passed it. No other point to a bill like this one. You can argue that it should be alright to discriminate against gays and they should have a bill like this, but lets not pretend it is about anything else.

See post #10 then enlighten us.
Obviously, YOU have read it thoroughly.

[Tom]

what happens to a Christian who makes a cake for a gay wedding? Do they go to hell? Do they feel bad because they made someone else happy? Do they get shamed by the church?

I mean, don't all of us serve customers everyday that we have serious issues with? I know I work around people everyday who I have massive fundamental differences with on tons of issues.

Of course not.
We serve liars and thieves and adulterers all the time. No one mentions it.
I have not read the bill, I am waiting for those who have condemned it to tell me why, then I will. But Dealing with a "sinner" happens all the time. Not there's anything wrong with that.

If you run a business, you can ban certain individuals, but never specific classes. And you can decide what products you will not offer and those you will.

[TJDave]

what happens to a Christian who makes a cake for a gay wedding? Do they go to hell? Do they feel bad because they made someone else happy? Do they get shamed by the church?

I mean, don't all of us serve customers everyday that we have serious issues with? I know I work around people everyday who I have massive fundamental differences with on tons of issues.

It is estimated that 8-10% of the population is gay. I would qustion the sanity of any business that voluntarily refused 10% of its customer pool. Add to that the 20-25% of straights who would boycott.

I'd suggest she shouldn't veto. Out these homophobes and let them suffer the consequence of their own prejudice.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...If you run a business, you can ban certain individuals, but never specific classes. And you can decide what products you will not offer and those you will.

That to me is the kicker in all of this... the world is giving this gift of gay marriage to exactly two distinct groups - gays that want to be married and the overpriced jackoffs that profit from weddings.

"Here my son, here's an auto-ten percent spike in business for being such a good shepherd..."

"Nah, your holiness, that's wrong, I can't profit from that."

"Uhhh, this is a miracle of all miracles, growth in a bunk industry. Get a clue."

[johnhannibalsmith]

It is estimated that 8-10% of the population is gay. I would qustion the sanity of any business that voluntarily refused 10% of its customer pool. Add to that the 20-25% of straights who would boycott.

...

Beat me to it, but of all the stories within a story, this is the facet that makes the least sense to me. Why even have a business or religion if you can't spot a blessing?

[Show Me the Wire]

what happens to a Christian who makes a cake for a gay wedding? Do they go to hell? Do they feel bad because they made someone else happy? Do they get shamed by the church?

I mean, don't all of us serve customers everyday that we have serious issues with? I know I work around people everyday who I have massive fundamental differences with on tons of issues.

The answer is they commit the sin of scandal.

[FantasticDan]

https://scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1/1779840_882719645090823_1901323619_n.jpg

[classhandicapper]

It is estimated that 8-10% of the population is gay. I would qustion the sanity of any business that voluntarily refused 10% of its customer pool. Add to that the 20-25% of straights who would boycott.

I'd suggest she shouldn't veto. Out these homophobes and let them suffer the consequence of their own prejudice.

IMO this is 100% the correct approach.

IMO these are private property issues anyway. The government should have almost nothing to do with them. People should have the right be bigots, racists, homophobic or whatever else they want to be when it comes to their own private property. The government should not be deciding values.

The market should decide and weed out those values that people disapprove of (or not).

I do not think it's ever correct to get to the right answer in the wrong way.

I question one thing. I don't know how we can be sure about that 8%-10% figure. I thought I read it was around 5%, but I assumed the real number must be closer to 50% based on every TV show having a gay character, gay subplot, gay innuendo, gay agenda theme mixed in, the news carrying reports about gay issues every night, and politicians bending over backwards to keep them happy.

I mean we have real issues in this country that could determine whether our economy will collapses in our lifetime and we are worried about some baker that won't serve gays when there are a dozen others in the same neighborhood that will?

[Show Me the Wire]

https://scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1/1779840_882719645090823_1901323619_n.jpg

Wrong State, wrong era and wrong logic.

It is a question of sin. The concept of scandal (spiritual term) is codified in criminal laws as an accessory to the crime. A person who drives other people to a bank, knowing that the other people intend on robbing the bank and its customers is guilty too, even though the driver did not physically enter the bank. The guilt is based on the driver's knowledge.

So let's frame the question this way. Should a government have the power to punish an individual for not wanting to commit a spiritual crime (sin)?

[Robert Goren]

IMO this is 100% the correct approach.

IMO these are private property issues anyway. The government should have almost nothing to do with them. People should have the right be bigots, racists, homophobic or whatever else they want to be when it comes to their own private property. The government should not be deciding values.

The market should decide and weed out those values that people disapprove of (or not).

I do not think it's ever correct to get to the right answer in the wrong way.
The problem arise when the vast majority of businesses in the field in the area deny service to a group. That often leaves the effect group with no access to that service. Theory is one thing, practice is another as we saw in the South pre civil rights movement.

[Robert Goren]

Wrong State, wrong era and wrong logic.

It is a question of sin. The concept of scandal (spiritual term) is codified in criminal laws as an accessory to the crime. A person who drives other people to a bank, knowing that the other people intend on robbing the bank and its customers is guilty too, even though the driver did not physically enter the bank. The guilt is based on the driver's knowledge.

So let's frame the question this way. Should a government have the power to punish an individual for not wanting to commit a spiritual crime (sin)?The government does that quite often. What is spiritual crime for some is progress for others. Here in Nebraska, the governments stand ready to force landowners to have a pipeline crossing their land which some believe to be defiling the land and sin against Nature and God. Their belief is as deeply held as of the anti gay's. And they quote religious texts( including the Bible) with anyone. They may not have very many people sharing same belief, but there are more than you think. When you start making exceptions for some beliefs, there going to be others want the same rights.

[Show Me the Wire]

The problem arise when the vast majority of businesses in the field in the area deny service to a group. That often leaves the effect group with no access to that service. Theory is one thing, practice is another as we saw in the South pre civil rights movement.

The majority of business did not deny services, as you imply. Services were offered in separate or segregated areas by law. The Walgreens in the famous counter picture served black people in such areas.

[Show Me the Wire]

The government does that quite often. What is spiritual crime for some is progress for others. Here in Nebraska, the governments stand ready to force landowners to have a pipeline crossing their land which some believe to be defiling the land and sin against Nature and God. Their belief is as deeply held as of the anti gay's. And they quote religious texts( including the Bible) with anyone. They may not have very many people sharing same belief, but there are more than you think. When you start making exceptions for some beliefs, there going to be others want the same rights.

They may believe it is a sin, but they are not being punished by the government for their beliefs.

BTW homosexual acts as a sin is not a belief held by a few. It is the view of the majority of cultures. Islam, Hindus, Buddhists and many other Eastern belief systems and religions believe it is a sin or unnatural behavior too.

[Tom]

Still waiting for someone to point out the specific wording they object to.
(cue *jeopardy theme song*)

[jballscalls]

I question one thing. I don't know how we can be sure about that 8%-10% figure. I thought I read it was around 5%, but I assumed the real number must be closer to 50% based on every TV show having a gay character, gay subplot, gay innuendo, gay agenda theme mixed in, the news carrying reports about gay issues every night, and politicians bending over backwards to keep them happy.
?

This post to me shows your sensitivity to gay issues being brought up. If you count the number of tv shows with gay characters, sub plots, innuendo or even brought up etc, I would be willing to guess the number is wayyyyyy less than 5%.

[jballscalls]

The answer is they commit the sin of scandal.

and what happens because of the sin of scandal?

[jballscalls]

Still waiting for someone to point out the specific wording they object to.
(cue *jeopardy theme song*)

In FOR THE PURPOSES OF this section, the term substantially burden
25 is intended solely to ensure that this article is not triggered by trivial,
26 technical or de minimis infractions.

First of all this stuff is complicated to read for someone of my limited intelligence!

I thought this was an interesting part of the article, because to me making a cake for a gay wedding seems quite trivial and a deminimis infraction because it doesn't effect the salesman's life at all other than making them money.

[jballscalls]

Wrong State, wrong era and wrong logic.

It is a question of sin. The concept of scandal (spiritual term) is codified in criminal laws as an accessory to the crime. A person who drives other people to a bank, knowing that the other people intend on robbing the bank and its customers is guilty too, even though the driver did not physically enter the bank. The guilt is based on the driver's knowledge.

So let's frame the question this way. Should a government have the power to punish an individual for not wanting to commit a spiritual crime (sin)?

we're talking about baking a cake or serving someone french fries or taking their pictures at a wedding. and you're comparing that to robbing a bank?

This is why we can't have agreement on so many of these issues, we apparently live on different planets!

[Show Me the Wire]

and what happens because of the sin of scandal?

It is a grievous sin that can lead to spiritual death, hell, etc. It is not a sin to be taken lightly.

[Show Me the Wire]

we're talking about baking a cake or serving someone french fries or taking their pictures at a wedding. and you're comparing that to robbing a bank?

This is why we can't have agreement on so many of these issues, we apparently live on different planets!

No it is not about just baking a cake or serving someone food. It is about knowledge. You are baking a cake with the knowledge of its purpose to celebrate a wedding which will be consummated through a homosexual act and violating the Sacrament of marriage. The baking of this specific cake is giving your approval of the behavior.

We both live on the same planet, but not in the same spiritual world.

[jballscalls]

It is a grievous sin that can lead to spiritual death, hell, etc. It is not s sin to be taken lightly.

As I said earlier, I just can't relate to that outlook at all. And I'm fine when someone wants to believe whatever they want to believe. But when it effects others negatively out in the world is when I have an objection.

Different strokes I suppose.

[jballscalls]

No it is not about just baking a cake or serving someone food. It is about knowledge. You are baking a cake with the knowledge of its purpose to celebrate a wedding which will be consummated through a homosexual act and violating the Sacrament of marriage. The baking of this specific cake is giving your approval of the behavior.

Love is a "behavior"? Love is a beautiful thing. I'd personally be more than happy to bake a cake that was celebrating a wedding of two people loving each other.

I get it though, we all have different opinions on things. There's things that I obsess and worry about that others think are not to be worried about.

[Show Me the Wire]

Have to go.

[jballscalls]

Have to go.

have a pleasant day!

[johnhannibalsmith]

...its purpose to celebrate a wedding which will be consummated through a homosexual act and violating the Sacrament of marriage. The baking of this specific cake is giving your approval of the behavior.

Give me a break. I suppose that there is ample precedent for cake baking moralists that have refused service to a serial adulterer working on marriage number five.

It isn't the sin thing, it's the gay thing. If they refused service to all sinners because they couldn't in good conscience be an accomplice to the anticipated or past sin of those that they provide a service for, they'd never engage in hardly any commerce at all.

[TJDave]

Gets its comeuppance ;)

Federal judge strikes down Texas gay marriage ban

http://news.yahoo.com/federal-judge-strikes-down-texas-gay-marriage-ban-193544850.html

[jballscalls]

Give me a break. I suppose that there is ample precedent for cake baking moralists that have refused service to a serial adulterer working on marriage number five.

It isn't the sin thing, it's the gay thing. If they refused service to all sinners because they couldn't in good conscience be an accomplice to the anticipated or past sin of those that they provide a service for, they'd never engage in hardly any commerce at all.

completely agree. Isn't pre-marital sex or oral sex against the rules too? what % of married couples nowadays waits until marriage to have sex? Has to be a minority right?

[ArlJim78]

It is estimated that 8-10% of the population is gay. I would qustion the sanity of any business that voluntarily refused 10% of its customer pool. Add to that the 20-25% of straights who would boycott.

I'd suggest she shouldn't veto. Out these homophobes and let them suffer the consequence of their own prejudice.
ding! ding! ding! we have a winner. you've got it exactly right.

to hear people talk you'd think if this bill passes that cake baking moralists* all around Arizona are just waiting for the word so they can stop selling cakes to gays. If on the remote chance that one of them did, then out them, boycott them, tell them to take their cakes and shove them, then take your business elsewhere.



*borrowed/stolen from JHS

[Tom]

If someone does''t want to make a gay themed cake, then I say he has that right. He can;'t refuse to sell any cake to a gay couple, but he certainly has the right to decide what he will and will not create. Big difference.

[JustRalph]

Gets its comeuppance ;)

Federal judge strikes down Texas gay marriage ban

http://news.yahoo.com/federal-judge-strikes-down-texas-gay-marriage-ban-193544850.html

This is ho hum...... since the equal protection argument was made.

It's not the real argument though. The real argument is about voters rights to nullify something in society. That legal avenue has lost too. When a ballot measure passes, do the courts have a right to overturn the will of the people. That's a much more interesting legal argument. Both losers.

The long and short of it will be similar to the civil rights laws that were passed. The underground discrimination against gays will continue and probably increase. They can hold up all the court decisions in the world against cup cake bakers and state referendums. It won't change peoples hearts. In fact it will incite some.

It's an issue that was turning in polite society anyway, court decisions and a hostile gay rights agenda will hurt that turn towards acceptance in some places.

Subtle bigotry can be worse than overt actions in many ways.

Just ask every black person who never got the job, and didn't know why?

[classhandicapper]

This post to me shows your sensitivity to gay issues being brought up. If you count the number of tv shows with gay characters, sub plots, innuendo or even brought up etc, I would be willing to guess the number is wayyyyyy less than 5%.

It has absolutely nothing to do with sensitivity. I was making a joke about what you would think the percentage of gays in the population is based on TV.

It is what it is, but there's no way they are underrepresented. My best guess would be that the percentage of gays in the entertainment business is greater than in the general population and that's why there's so much of it on TV.

What I am sensitive to is watching politicians and newscasters worry about an endless number of minor issues while Rome is burning.

[Jay Trotter]

This whole "marriage" thing is such bullshit!

My perception is that too many people get hung up on the word "marriage". People seem to think they have a claim to the word in a religious sense. Yes, the joining of two heterosexual people in holy matrimony is the most common use of the word; but it can also be used as "a combination or mixture of two or more elements: a marriage of jazz, pop, blues, and gospel". It's just a word.

It seems the religious people would prefer the word "civil union" or some such for gay marriages, if at all. The bottom line is the non-traditional community just wants to be treated equally as human beings. They have as much right to the word "marriage" as anybody else. The religious people should just redefine the term as "Christian marriage, Jewish marriage or Muslim marriage" if they don't like how the word seems to put them in the same box as the LGBT community.

Discrimination on the basis of someone being gay is just wrong and way more immoral than the supposed sin of gay sex. Being gay is just human nature; and even if I'm somehow wrong on this why does someone else being gay need to affect the non-gay community. It doesn't. Aren't there enough real problems in the world to spend our energy on.

As a side note, I'm planning a golf trip later this year and my number one destination at this point is Scottsdale, Arizona. If the dinosaur politicians of the state decide to enact this prejudicial legislation, I for one will be taking my dollars elsewhere.

[PhantomOnTour]

Many heterosexual couples have anal sex.

So, what if Mike and Sally want to get their names on a cake and tell the baker they intend to have anal sex as well as "normal" sex during their marriage.
Will they still make the cake for them?

[Show Me the Wire]

completely agree. Isn't pre-marital sex or oral sex against the rules too? what % of married couples nowadays waits until marriage to have sex? Has to be a minority right?

Good question. A commentary about your scenario.

Here’s a popular scenario for most Catholics: we’re invited to a wedding, but we’re fully aware that the bride- and groom-to-be have been cohabitating (i.e., living together) for some time now. The wedding will be a Catholic one, and the expectation—per Church norms—is that the couple has completed the pre-nuptial course with a priest or deacon, wherein cohabitation is expressly rejected as a viable option. And so on and so forth............................................. .........................................

In short, although we might not be “cooperating with evil” by attending the wedding, are we acting in a way that “leads another to do evil”?

Scandal: The forgotten sin By Andrew Haines


It is not just a gay thing.

[Show Me the Wire]

Many heterosexual couples have anal sex.



Are you speaking from experience? :)


So, what if Mike and Sally want to get their names on a cake and tell the baker they intend to have anal sex as well as "normal" sex during their marriage.
Will they still make the cake for them?

If the baker is Muslim. :D

[johnhannibalsmith]

...




If the baker is Muslim. :D

Funny you mention it, but I started to think if this bill would set the stage for Muslims to refuse service to infidels and the price of gas surges to $9.89.99999999999999cents for us gringos.

Gotta be in Rules For Radicals somewhere. :D

[JustRalph]

Trotter, When Jazz, Pop and Blues can go to court and take half the property of Gospel, then it's just a word. Ignoring the legal differences and the volumes of legal precedent over the last two hundred years is ignoring a huge part of the issue for nothing more than convenience to simplify the comparison.

It's not just seizing the word for religious reasons. Lots of evidence of the deprecation of traditional marriage being directly related to many of our societal ills. Don't oversimplify it.

[Jay Trotter]

Trotter, When Jazz, Pop and Blues can go to court and take half the property of Gospel, then it's just a word. Ignoring the legal differences and the volumes of legal precedent over the last two hundred years is ignoring a huge part of the issue for nothing more than convenience to simplify the comparison.

It's not just seizing the word for religious reasons. Lots of evidence of the deprecation of traditional marriage being directly related to many of our societal ills. Don't oversimplify it.I honestly don't know what you're trying to tell me????

Who cares if there was this thing called "traditional marriage". The world moves forward and people wish to partner-up with who they wish and they want to call it marriage. Who is anybody to say they can't?

You do realize that only a few decades ago blacks and whites couldn't marry either. Even now this might be considered "non-traditional" but it is nobody's business.

[reckless]

If the stupid and cowardly phony John McCain wants Brewer to veto this bill...

If the weak and inarticulate liberal Mitt Romney wants Brewer to veto this bill...

If the homophobic, racist National Football League wants Brewer to veto this bill...

That's enough for me... Jan Brewer should NOT veto this bill.

But, that said, she has a history of fecklessness so I believe she'll buckle, which means a closer end to common sense and an end of freedom of choice and religion.

[johnhannibalsmith]

http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/20140226arizona-jan-brewer-1062-statement.html

Here, you can watch the Game of the Day as it happens.

[JustRalph]

Trotter, you say people are just getting hung up on the word. My response was it's more than just a word.

She vetoed it. She lost all her fight right after Obama threatened her on the Tarmac when he came to visit a few years ago.

As soon as Apple and the NFL threatened me, I would have signed it :lol:

[reckless]

Brewer buckled as expected without addressing the issue at hand.

To hell with common sense not to mention religious freedom.

We'll all be here in a few years debating when a pro-life medical doctor gets hauled off to jail when he/she refuses to perform an abortion. You could also kiss goodbye any religious-oriented hospitals.

[PhantomOnTour]

Are you speaking from experience? :)
This is why it's impossible to have a conversation with religious fools.
You raise a point about sex and they turn into 4yr olds.

[Jay Trotter]

Marriage "is" just a word. The commitment of a marriage is much more than a word. The commitment doesn't know if you're gay or straight.

I simply don't understand why the religious right needs to deny one segment of the population to justify the sanctity of their own marriages. :bang:

[Stillriledup]

If the stupid and cowardly phony John McCain wants Brewer to veto this bill...

If the weak and inarticulate liberal Mitt Romney wants Brewer to veto this bill...

If the homophobic, racist National Football League wants Brewer to veto this bill...

That's enough for me... Jan Brewer should NOT veto this bill.

But, that said, she has a history of fecklessness so I believe she'll buckle, which means a closer end to common sense and an end of freedom of choice and religion.

When the NFL says jump, you say.....

[burnsy]

Of course not.
We serve liars and thieves and adulterers all the time. No one mentions it.
I have not read the bill, I am waiting for those who have condemned it to tell me why, then I will. But Dealing with a "sinner" happens all the time. Not there's anything wrong with that.

If you run a business, you can ban certain individuals, but never specific classes. And you can decide what products you will not offer and those you will.

That nails it right there. You can ban a person for causing a disturbance or breaking the law or being lewd...but you can't classify people and ban them on religion. Plus, half of these jackasses are a la carte Christians...What about hetro couples that lived together before marriage.....pre martial sex? half these bums voting "yes" probably screw their secretaries.....what about adultery? How come none of this counts anymore? Then someone mentions "the sanctity of marriage" ....Hell, half of the jokers in the old Testament had a dozen wives for crying out loud. What about the tried and true standard of not judging others? Because if you truly are a righteous person......that's rule number one. As soon as you judge another.....religious or not, if it is real you are bringing a world of hurt on yourself. Why are people so dumb not to understand that? You cast the first stone....the last one is probably going to hit YOU twice as hard. Its a free country, if you trade IN PUBLIC you can't choose your customers. Its a no brainer that the photographer lost that law suit..the "pseudo religious" don't really have a shot in hell......:lol: Because if this gets your panties in an uproar. You better do some soul searching on yourself. Almost all of us on here gamble, what kind of "moral authorities" are we? Somehow what other people choose to do is so much worse? If God is listening, good luck with that.

[Show Me the Wire]

This is why it's impossible to have a conversation with religious fools.
You raise a point about sex and they turn into 4yr olds.

Sorry I thought you had a sense of humor. I apologize for being a fool.

[Jay Trotter]

That nails it right there. You can ban a person for causing a disturbance or breaking the law or being lewd...but you can't classify people and ban them on religion. Plus, half of these jackasses are a la carte Christians...What about hetro couples that lived together before marriage.....pre martial sex? half these bums voting "yes" probably screw their secretaries.....what about adultery? How come none of this counts anymore? Then someone mentions "the sanctity of marriage" ....Hell, half of the jokers in the old Testament had a dozen wives for crying out loud. What about the tried and true standard of not judging others? Because if you truly are a righteous person......that's rule number one. As soon as you judge another.....religious or not, if it is real you are bringing a world of hurt on yourself. Why are people so dumb not to understand that? You cast the first stone....the last one is probably going to hit YOU twice as hard. Its a free country, if you trade IN PUBLIC you can't choose your customers. Its a no brainer that the photographer lost that law suit..the "pseudo religious" don't really have a shot in hell......:lol: Because if this gets your panties in an uproar. You better do some soul searching on yourself. Almost all of us on here gamble, what kind of "moral authorities" are we? Somehow what other people choose to do is so much worse? If God is listening, good luck with that.

http://perfectlycursedlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Amen.gif

Amen Brother!:ThmbUp:

[Stillriledup]

How would businesses know if a customer is gay or not?

[jballscalls]

How would businesses know if a customer is gay or not?

Probably when the people ordering a wedding cake ask for two groom statues on the top?

[Tom]

If marriage is just a word, why were gays so damn set against having a civil union? Same rights, different name.

Come on, there is still an agenda here.

[Stillriledup]

Probably when the people ordering a wedding cake ask for two groom statues on the top?

:D That would do it.

[jballscalls]

If marriage is just a word, why were gays so damn set against having a civil union? Same rights, different name.

Come on, there is still an agenda here.

I think it's wanting to be viewed on the same level as heterosexual couples who are married, not some different side category. The term marriage probably carries a little more history and esteem than the term civil union.

[newtothegame]

Lol, I really should question my own reasoning (or lack there of) for getting into this thread. but, with that being said I believe it to be an interesting topic.

First off, I have absolutely no problem with someone, anyone being gay, hetero sexual or whatever floats their boat. As I mentioned in the Sam thread, what goes on in his bed room is his business.

But for me, here is the problem and issues at hand.....
Everyone that is pro gay, say that we should not infringe upon their rights to be gay......(yet you have no problem with that same gay person infringing upon another's right not to like it).

For me, this is merely another case of activism. I wonder how many bakeries were in this area that would of gladly made this couples cake?

As a consumer, I have a right to frequent and shop where I wish (based upon some of the above statements). Yet, that business owner, by default because he owns the business has to serve me, regardless of his beliefs? Somehow that doesn't seem right.

Sure the business owner is taking a huge risk (and possibly lose consumers) by doing so. But, let's turn this around for a minute....let's say the bakery owner decided he would make these adorned cakes with male/male ornaments on top and female/female ornaments. And the Christian right chose to raise a big stink because they were now offended....would any of you be siding with the Christian right in this issue and tell the owner that he should not make the cakes that are so offensive to a certain segment of society?

We have become so sensitive as a society that in order to appease one persons views, we are willing to sacrifice another persons views. And, we do it without a thought of the person who is NOW being offended.

We get rid of the term merry Christmas to appease non Christians as they find it offensive, yet haven't we just offended the Christians as well?

Why is it that society needs to PUSH their views on others? is it so important to a gay person to be recognized that they need to show me what goes on in their bedrooms?
As I said in the sam thread, and I will repeat it again here.... I do not need to carry a banner (cliché for going to news outlets) to proclaim my "traditional marriage to a woman. I am very secure in who I am.
It is of my opinion that insecurities are what is causing the need for acceptance. And the only way for that need to be justified is to take it to some news outlet, proclaim discrimination or whatever, and have someone else (Like the NFL etc etc) come out and support your cause.

I am sure this couples whole life has now been ruined forever due to this one bakery refusing to make their cake! :rolleyes: So lack of a cake now leads to an entire state having to take up a law in regards as to whether or not a business has a right (based on deep rooted religious beliefs) to turn someone away....??????

I am so looking for the next store who is holding or presenting a sign in their window that says "No shirt, no shoes, no service"......I am thinking of holding a press conference live on one of the major outlets.....who will join me in my need for better shoes? Since I don't have the nicest on the market, I figure I just wont wear mine next time I go shopping....I am sure I will have someone turn me away. And boy when I do get turned away....(live at 5).......:lol:

[Stillriledup]

Lol, I really should question my own reasoning (or lack there of) for getting into this thread. but, with that being said I believe it to be an interesting topic.

First off, I have absolutely no problem with someone, anyone being gay, hetero sexual or whatever floats their boat. As I mentioned in the Sam thread, what goes on in his bed room is his business.

But for me, here is the problem and issues at hand.....
Everyone that is pro gay, say that we should not infringe upon their rights to be gay......(yet you have no problem with that same gay person infringing upon another's right not to like it).

For me, this is merely another case of activism. I wonder how many bakeries were in this area that would of gladly made this couples cake?

As a consumer, I have a right to frequent and shop where I wish (based upon some of the above statements). Yet, that business owner, by default because he owns the business has to serve me, regardless of his beliefs? Somehow that doesn't seem right.

Sure the business owner is taking a huge risk (and possibly lose consumers) by doing so. But, let's turn this around for a minute....let's say the bakery owner decided he would make these adorned cakes with male/male ornaments on top and female/female ornaments. And the Christian right chose to raise a big stink because they were now offended....would any of you be siding with the Christian right in this issue and tell the owner that he should not make the cakes that are so offensive to a certain segment of society?

We have become so sensitive as a society that in order to appease one persons views, we are willing to sacrifice another persons views. And, we do it without a thought of the person who is NOW being offended.

We get rid of the term merry Christmas to appease non Christians as they find it offensive, yet haven't we just offended the Christians as well?

Why is it that society needs to PUSH their views on others? is it so important to a gay person to be recognized that they need to show me what goes on in their bedrooms?
As I said in the sam thread, and I will repeat it again here.... I do not need to carry a banner (cliché for going to news outlets) to proclaim my "traditional marriage to a woman. I am very secure in who I am.
It is of my opinion that insecurities are what is causing the need for acceptance. And the only way for that need to be justified is to take it to some news outlet, proclaim discrimination or whatever, and have someone else (Like the NFL etc etc) come out and support your cause.

I am sure this couples whole life has now been ruined forever due to this one bakery refusing to make their cake! :rolleyes: So lack of a cake now leads to an entire state having to take up a law in regards as to whether or not a business has a right (based on deep rooted religious beliefs) to turn someone away....??????

I am so looking for the next store who is holding or presenting a sign in their window that says "No shirt, no shoes, no service"......I am thinking of holding a press conference live on one of the major outlets.....who will join me in my need for better shoes? Since I don't have the nicest on the market, I figure I just wont wear mine next time I go shopping....I am sure I will have someone turn me away. And boy when I do get turned away....(live at 5).......:lol:

Here's the difference....if you are accepting of the gay lifestyle and didnt care what other people do behind closed doors, that's not the same as a shop owner turning away a customer because that customer isnt living his life the way the shop owner would live HIS life.

A lot of this comes down to people trying to force other people to live their lives in a simliar fashion...which is kind of ridiculous because nobody has any right to tell other people how they should live....everyone in the world does at least one thing that at least one other person in the world would never do....imagine if we all had to go around conforming to how everyone wants us to live our lives.

[newtothegame]

Here's the difference....if you are accepting of the gay lifestyle and didnt care what other people do behind closed doors, that's not the same as a shop owner turning away a customer because that customer isnt living his life the way the shop owner would live HIS life.

A lot of this comes down to people trying to force other people to live their lives in a simliar fashion...which is kind of ridiculous because nobody has any right to tell other people how they should live....everyone in the world does at least one thing that at least one other person in the world would never do....imagine if we all had to go around conforming to how everyone wants us to live our lives.

You are absolutely right.....which is why I said I could care less what anyone does in their bedroom.....

You see, look at the bolded part above.....You see it as the bakery owner trying to tell the gay couple how they should live, yet you fail to see the fact that the gay couple IS ALSO trying to tell the business owner how he should run his business.

I say both parties should be allowed to do whatever they like and if it doesn't suit either one, then go their own ways. As I said I am sure there are many other bakeries in town to make a cake...just as there are many other shoppers who will frequent the bakery......

[rastajenk]

...imagine if we all had to go around conforming to how everyone wants us to live our lives.Which has been the goal of progressives for over 100 years.

[jballscalls]

We have become so sensitive as a society that in order to appease one persons views, we are willing to sacrifice another persons views. And, we do it without a thought of the person who is NOW being offended.


Why is it that society needs to PUSH their views on others? is it so important to a gay person to be recognized that they need to show me what goes on in their bedrooms?

It is of my opinion that insecurities are what is causing the need for acceptance. And the only way for that need to be justified is to take it to some news outlet, proclaim discrimination or whatever, and have someone else (Like the NFL etc etc) come out and support your cause.



Here's the big difference in your top paragraph. We're wanting to appease one person's views who are being treated as less than equal to the other persons views.

So often I hear people "well liberals are all for tolerance unless your views are different than them". I'm not a liberal per se, but I will say that most I know and myself as well are tolerant of peoples views when they aren't hateful, bigoted or viewing another human being as somehow less than them because they are different. I'm not going to tolerate someone thinking a gay couple should be treated different than a straight couple. It's the same as taxes. I don't think it's fair for one person to pay 45% and one to pay 20%. It's inequality. And I've voted to remedy that disparity just as I've voted to remedy marriage equality.

It's so important for a gay person to be recognized as you said above because it's there truth and it's been deemed by a lot of people as a bad thing. As straight people we have the luxury of never having to worry about offending someone or making them uncomfortable because we're straight. We can hold hands with our partner in public and nobody gives it a second thought. We can have public conversations with friends or people at work about our partners and it's no big deal. That isn't necessarily the case with same sex couples because a large segment of the population detests the idea of same sex couples.

my experience has been the people who are so bothered by the "gay agenda" are usually the ones who don't want them to have equality. They learned at some point in their life that being homosexual was bad, wrong, immoral, less than ideal whatever. Nobody is born homophobic. Just as nobody is born racist. It's something we learn and are taught.

[classhandicapper]

I think it's wanting to be viewed on the same level as heterosexual couples who are married, not some different side category. The term marriage probably carries a little more history and esteem than the term civil union.

That's exactly it.

The agenda is NOT simply equal rights, otherwise civil unions with exactly the same legal parameters would suffice.

The agenda is to normalize and equalize the behavior.

IMO the overwhelming percentage of people in this country couldn't give a rats ass about who other people date, live with, have sex with etc.. and would be in favor of equality in a legal sense.

But for many, when they are thinking in terms of the "natural order of things", same sex relationships do not pass their "intrinsic normalcy" or "religious morality" tests no matter what the cause. So they want their own relationships categorized differently.

That's the crux of the problem.

I think religious people should just abandon the term marriage, give it to the homosexuals, and create a brand new category for themselves that involves a religious ceremony in the faith they belong to.

Gays AND HETEROSEXUALS joined by a justice of the peace etc... would be referred to as "married" and the religious would have something called "spiritual union under God" where they are joined by priests, rabbis, ministers etc... and they would be free to recognize other religions or not, but do not consider marriage as equal even if it is heterosexual.

[Jay Trotter]

I think religious people should just abandon the term marriage, give it to the homosexuals, and create a brand new category for themselves that involves a religious ceremony in the faith they belong to.That's basically what I said.

[mostpost]

Still waiting for someone to point out the specific wording they object to.
(cue *jeopardy theme song*)
Here it is;
B. Except as provided in subsection C, government OF THIS SECTION,
8 STATE ACTION shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion
9 even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.


Now you and ArlJim78 are going to say that the word "Gay" is nowhere in the above. Correct. And that is what makes this law so insidious. SB 1062 would have codified all types of religious intolerance. If you don't like gays, you don't have to serve gays. If your religion condemns unmarried mothers you don't have to serve them. You are a Baptist? Catholics need not apply.

If SB 1062 had specifically allowed discrimination against gay people, it would have been a disgrace. It allows discrimination against everyone. It is beyond a disgrace.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by classhandicapper
I think religious people should just abandon the term marriage, give it to the homosexuals, and create a brand new category for themselves that involves a religious ceremony in the faith they belong to.


Marriage has been a sacrament of the Catholic Church since the beginning.
Why should they change?

[mostpost]

The answer is they commit the sin of scandal.
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia-which I am (Catholic, not Encyclopedia)-scandal is a word or action evil in itself, which occasions another's spiritual ruin.
Explain to me how serving a gay person a meal, or selling them a cake, or selling them flowers, or even providing them with lodging occasions their spiritual ruin. How are those actions evil in themself?

Perhaps your religion has a different definition of scandal.

[Clocker]

Marriage has been a sacrament of the Catholic Church since the beginning.
Why should they change?


I think that the government, and especially the federal government, needs to get out of the marriage business. Any religious marriage ceremony performed by a church should be recognized by the state as a civil union. Any couple not wanting such a ceremony could register for a certificate of civil union from the state.

[Jay Trotter]

Marriage has been a sacrament of the Catholic Church since the beginning.
Why should they change?I don't believe the Catholic Church has to change anything! That's the whole point -- allowing others to marry doesn't affect anything the Catholic Church is doing.

Now if "gays" were wanting to be married in a Catholic Church that would be changing the church's stance.

[Show Me the Wire]

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia-which I am (Catholic, not Encyclopedia)-scandal is a word or action evil in itself, which occasions another's spiritual ruin.
Explain to me how serving a gay person a meal, or selling them a cake, or selling them flowers, or even providing them with lodging occasions their spiritual ruin. How are those actions evil in themself?

Perhaps your religion has a different definition of scandal.

I assume you mean Roman Catholic. If so my religion is the same and has the same definition.

Serving a gay person, adulterer, etc a meal ,selling them a cake, etc is not scandal in itself.

You should read more on the subject than just the blurb from a search. Scandal can be active, as well as, passive. In the marriage instant we are describing passive scandal.

As a Catholic you understand marriage is a Sacrament between a man and a woman, anything else is a sin. Allowing your services to be knowingly used so that another individual will commit a sin is scandal. In this instance you are acquiescing to the violation of a Church Sacrament and homosexual activity, which is also a sin in the eyes of our Church.


To prevent another's sin one may even be bound to forego an act which is sinful neither in itself nor in appearance, but which is nevertheless the occasion of sin to another, unless there be sufficient reason to act otherwise.
(emphasis added) Catholic Encyclopedia

Also, mere attendance at an event can be scandal.

In short, although we might not be “cooperating with evil” by attending the wedding, are we acting in a way that “leads another to do evil”? Catholic News Agency

Basically, if any action can be interpreted as an approval of something that will lead another to sin is scandal.

Hope this helps you understand your religions position and it is not scandal by solely providing another human being services based on whether the person is gay or not.

[mostpost]

The person who sent me a PM suggesting what I should or should not discuss with my pastor needs to learn to mind his own business.

[TJDave]

The person who sent me a PM suggesting what I should or should not discuss with my pastor needs to learn to mind his own business.

The religious of all stripes need to mind their own business.

[Jay Trotter]

The person who sent me a PM suggesting what I should or should not discuss with my pastor needs to learn to mind his own business.You should "OUT" this person Mostie -- that would be ironic! :lol:

[Show Me the Wire]

You should "OUT" this person Mostie -- that would be ironic! :lol:

It was me.

[JustRalph]

The person who sent me a PM suggesting what I should or should not discuss with my pastor needs to learn to mind his own business.

I'm sorry, I won't do it again. I was seeking redemption for your soul.

How about a short discussion with your local community organizer. They seem to be the real religious deity in your world.

[Show Me the Wire]

The religious of all stripes need to mind their own business.

Mostpost, a self professed Catholic, is my business. As a Catholic I had an obligation to fulfill, which I did.

[TJDave]

Mostpost, a self professed Catholic, is my business. As a Catholic I had an obligation to fulfill, which I did.

IMHO, whomever told you that needs to STFU.

[Show Me the Wire]

IMHO, whomever told you that needs to STFU.

Need to mind your own business, yeah right :bang: :bang: :bang:

[Show Me the Wire]

The religious of all stripes need to mind their own business.

First I did not originate the conversation, see mostpost's #76 where he directly asked me a question. My pm was a continuation of my answer, which really isn't germane to baking cakes. Horror of horrors I suggested he talk to his Pastor or a priest about a certain behavior and its relationship to scandal.

[mostpost]

You should "OUT" this person Mostie -- that would be ironic! :lol:
It seems he outed himself. Let me clarify a few things here. If a religion does not countenance same sex marriage, it should not be forced to perform same sex marriages. It has the right to ban persons in such marriages from its religious services. I don't agree with such action, but it is their right.

But that is not what the discussion of SB 1062 is about. SB 1062 is about applying religious beliefs to totally non religious situations. SB 1062 is about discrimination based on perceptions.

I deleted his PM, but as best I recall, SMTW advised me to seek my pastor's counsel on the consequences of openly advocating for gay marriage. He is correct that our religion does not allow such a thing. I would remind him that the Roman Catholic church was once going to burn Galileo at the stake for advocating a heliocentric solar system.

The world evolves. Our understanding of life evolves. This same Roman Catholic church taught me for a third of my life that if I ate meat on Friday I would go to hell. Now, eating meat on (most) Fridays is not a problem. Religion evolves.

One last thing just to be clear. I support same sex marriage because I believe that is the right thing to do. I believe people have the right to love whom they choose. I am not myself gay. I am also not homophobic.

Just do not put any moves on me. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[dnlgfnk]

It seems he outed himself. Let me clarify a few things here. If a religion does not countenance same sex marriage, it should not be forced to perform same sex marriages. It has the right to ban persons in such marriages from its religious services. I don't agree with such action, but it is their right.

But that is not what the discussion of SB 1062 is about. SB 1062 is about applying religious beliefs to totally non religious situations. SB 1062 is about discrimination based on perceptions.

I deleted his PM, but as best I recall, SMTW advised me to seek my pastor's counsel on the consequences of openly advocating for gay marriage. He is correct that our religion does not allow such a thing. I would remind him that the Roman Catholic church was once going to burn Galileo at the stake for advocating a heliocentric solar system.



The world evolves. Our understanding of life evolves. This same Roman Catholic church taught me for a third of my life that if I ate meat on Friday I would go to hell. Now, eating meat on (most) Fridays is not a problem. Religion evolves.

One last thing just to be clear. I support same sex marriage because I believe that is the right thing to do. I believe people have the right to love whom they choose. I am not myself gay. I am also not homophobic.

Just do not put any moves on me. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Greetings, Mostpost.

"it should not be forced to perform same sex marriages"..."I don't agree with such action..."

Huh?

"SB 1062 is about applying religious beliefs to totally non religious situations. SB 1062 is about discrimination based on perceptions."

Sb 1062 is about extending protections that apply to religious bodies through the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act", which was upheld by the Supreme Court, to individuals (i.e., pharmacists selling abortifacients, wedding photographers, etc.)

"I would remind him that the Roman Catholic church was once going to burn Galileo at the stake for advocating a heliocentric solar system..."

Galileo was jailed (I'm not defending that, although contexts of times and all that are in play) not for heliocentric theory (Copernicus had already taught it well before) but for making himself the interpreter of scripture over and above theologians, et.al.

" This same Roman Catholic church taught me for a third of my life that if I ate meat on Friday I would go to hell. Now, eating meat on (most) Fridays is not a problem.

Meatless Fridays were (are) a discipline, not a doctrine. When third world bishops at Vatican II stated that their people rarely had access to the luxury of meat, the discipline was changed to any personal sacrifice at the individual's discretion, except for Lent when abstinence from meat is the norm. The fault would have been in disobedience.

"Religion evolves..."

Of course, for those things that are transitory, like the above paragraph, to meet times and places. Not so marriage.

The union of husband and wife is a metaphor for the union of the Persons of the Trinity, whose love is life giving. Father and Son spirate the Holy Spirit. The obvious complementary nature of the sexes is "sacramental"- a visible sign of a spiritual reality. Christ's relationship to his church is spoken of in nuptial language (Eph 5)-- the Bridegroom and bride.

The intentional sterility and countersign of same-sex "marriage" to the above make it intrinsically impossible--a fiction.

Pax