Federal judge: Arguments against gay marriage 'are not those of serious people'

[katautumn]

Yup, and other companies are going to say they don't want to pay employees whose values disagree with theirs.

The SCOTUS ruling was not so broad it would allow for such a thing to occur. Not within the confines of the law, at least.

 

[Marius27]

And there ARE female preachers.

They're violating the statements made by Paul. Still, heterosexuals being the majority, it's a fair assumption your name refers to you being a wife to a man.

It has everything to do with it, because that's what I am told. What you do in the bedroom is not my business, right? I agree...so stop going on news channels and saying "I'M GAY!"

You're under the mistaken impression orientation only refers to what one does in the bedroom. It involves a lot more than that.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Would you say the same thing about a company that didn't want to pay for someone's medical marijuana?

How's it any different from paying for more dangerous drugs, that has FDA approval.

 

[mpok1519]

How's it any different from paying for more dangerous drugs, that has FDA approval.

Yes, one can definitely contend the government funds much more dangerous substances than marijuana.

 

[mpok1519]

Would you say the same thing about a company that didn't want to pay for someone's medical marijuana?

Should that be different from any medication?

 

[Belk]

Are you implying that gay people, using secular law, get to deny people equal protection under the law based on who they choose to have sex with?

No, I'm implying nothing of the sort. Where do you even get this misunderstanding?

Maybe you should try actually READING the article before deciding it's not pertinent to your question.

I did. But by all means, point out the section that addresses if couples who adopt or are married with children from a previous relationship follow the same pattern of being less likely to split up or not if I missed it.

 

[poolerboy0077]

No, I'm implying nothing of the sort. Where do you even get this misunderstanding?

Fundamentalists and schizophrenics share many similar traits it seems.

 

[Glass*Soul]

Yup, and other companies are going to say they don't want to pay employees whose values disagree with theirs. The moment you treat companies as persons that can express their faith in how they treat employees, you've opened Pandora's box. Just watch what happens and tell me in a couple of years which of us was right. I'm not personally at risk. My values are generally consistent with what most companies would consider good. I support equality for gays. But I'd like to avoid having discrimination against conservative Christians. I think this decision is going to make it harder.

And right you are: Religious groups want exemption from hiring LGBT after Hobby Lobby ruling

This in reference to a pending order regarding those receiving federal contracts being barred from discrimination against gays and lesbians in hiring.

The headline is a little misleading in that the article up only establishes that this has taken place "after" in the sense of the order of events, not in the sense of one leading to the other. However, any ruling on the latter is going to have to take the former into consideration, so they now have a certain advantage in this matter ripe for the exploiting, so one is suspicious.

This is how the letter phrases it, "We are asking that an extension of protection for one group not come at the expense of faith communities whose religious identity and beliefs motivate them to serve those in need."

Rather mealy-mouthed phrasing actually.

Gee, if you don't let those receiving federal contracts deny employment to people based on sexual orientation how ever will they ever manage to serve those in need?

​

 

[Glass*Soul]

Should I start a new topic on the above, or is this as good a place as any to discuss it?

 

[Belk]

Should I start a new topic on the above, or is this as good a place as any to discuss it?

I would say start a separate topic. I think that is significant enough to deserve it's own thread.

 

[Desk trauma]

Granted, a poor choice of words on my part implying that such laws are already enacted. But the "politically correct" in this country are trying their best at enacting them.

Again, site an example of where laws are even being proposed to make bigoted speech, not actions speech, illegal.

But already, we have "hate crime" laws that attempt to use a person's beliefs (excluding Christians), or race (excluding whites), or who they have sex with (excluding heterosexuals) as a means to indicate motive and increase the chances of a person being convicted when a crime is committed.

While I am ambivalent towards hate crime laws that is not how they work, despite what you have been told. The laws can cover crimes against Christians, hetrosexuals or whites if those are determined to be motivating factors behind the crimes. If you feel that such crimes are not being properly prosecuted under state or federal statutes you should get in touch with your local authorities.

 

[Desk trauma]

The same way any other sin becomes tolerable.

Such a state defended violation of the first two commandments?

 

[Glass*Soul]

I would say start a separate topic. I think that is significant enough to deserve it's own thread.

I have done so.

This side discussion has been a bit of a derail.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

The same way any other sin becomes tolerable. They do it incrementally, a little at a time. And ya know what? Just introduce sin of ANY kind a little at a time, and pretty soon, everything will be tolerated.

So if your a Christian, then you have nothing to worry about.

 

[Queller]

I guess the bottom line is:

People are free to believe or not believe what they choose and they should be able to do so without outside interference and as long as they are not harming others in the process.[/quote]

That's what I think too. It's only bothers me when the government gets involved and starts treating some people as more equal than others.
[/quote] You mean such as a Christian baker treating heterosexual couples as more equal than homosexual couples?

 

[Aldebaran]

That's what I think too. It's only bothers me when the government gets involved and starts treating some people as more equal than others.

[/quote] You mean such as a Christian baker treating heterosexual couples as more equal than homosexual couples?[/quote]

"Equal treatment under the law" is a policy of government, not something to be imposed on individuals regarding one another. Otherwise, nobody should be allowed to have anything anyone else doesn't have, which would require the government to seize and redistribute the wealth of individuals and businesses on the basis of "fairness". (Not that our government would ever try something like that.....)

 

[AmorFati]

Now that gays can marry heterosexuals will no longer have sex or make babies. You know that's how it works. I'm sure the statistics verifying this will be pouring in at all the states which allow it anytime soon now. Gay marriage magically destroys the libido of heterosexuals.

 

[Glass*Soul]

Now that gays can marry heterosexuals will no longer have sex or make babies. You know that's how it works. I'm sure the statistics verifying this will be pouring in at all the states which allow it anytime soon now. Gay marriage magically destroys the libido of heterosexuals.

Well, that should solve the whole birth control coverage problem.

 

[Queller]

"Equal treatment under the law" is a policy of government, not something to be imposed on individuals regarding one another.

Why not? The Constitutions states that all men are created equal, does it not? Why should some companies get government assistance in the form of tax subsidies and the like and still be allowed to illegally discriminate?

Otherwise, nobody should be allowed to have anything anyone else doesn't have, which would require the government to seize and redistribute the wealth of individuals and businesses on the basis of "fairness". (Not that our government would ever try something like that.....)

Well, it isn't really equal "treatment" under the law that I care about so much as it is equal "opportunity" under the law. Discrimination on the basis of irrelevant characteristics such as race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. denies members of the population equal opportunity to participate in society.

 

[Aldebaran]

Why not? The Constitutions states that all men are created equal, does it not? Why should some companies get government assistance in the form of tax subsidies and the like and still be allowed to illegally discriminate?

The constitution was written to put up boundaries between the government and the people to ensure that the government's powers are kept in check. As for government assistance in the form of tax subsidies--I don't believe they should exist because the government should not be giving tax breaks to some while fully taxing another. That's basically the government showing discrimination (using the liberal's language here).

Well, it isn't really equal "treatment" under the law that I care about so much as it is equal "opportunity" under the law. Discrimination on the basis of irrelevant characteristics such as race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. denies members of the population equal opportunity to participate in society.[/quote]

Nobody is born with equal opportunity. Everyone has their own gifts and talents and it's up to them to make their own way in the world. Nobody is guaranteed anything. Much depends on the decisions they make in life, whatever their skin color, who they have sex with, or what god they worship.