Pope Francis backs same-sex civil unions

[VirOptimus]

Not sure what your point is. I posted the example of Mr Phillips and the Masterpiece Cake case and that the Supreme court decided that he had the right to express his belief to not create a cake for a SSM and you said " No, its still bigoted opinions opposing ssm ".

So are you saying that despite Mr Phillips win and right not to create a cake for a SSM he still has a bigoted opinion opposing SSM. I can only read a post as it is plainly laid out.

Yes it is bigoted.

 

[Speedwell]

Not sure what your point is. I posted the example of Mr Phillips and the Masterpiece Cake case and that the Supreme court decided that he had the right to express his belief to not create a cake for a SSM and you said " No, its still bigoted opinions opposing ssm ".

So are you saying that despite Mr Phillips win and right not to create a cake for a SSM he still has a bigoted opinion opposing SSM. I can only read a post as it is plainly laid out.

Yes, Mr. Phillips has a right to express his opinions and Viroptimus has a right to call them out as bigoted.

 

[VirOptimus]

Yes, Mr. Phillips has a right to express his opinions and Viroptimus has a right to call them out as bigoted.

The inability to understand simple concepts is stunning.

 

[stevevw]

You are missing a big part of the picture when you are discussing court cases and other controversies here in the US. I don't know what things are like in Australia, but here in this country we have a concerted movement called the Religious Right, a loose coalition of Evangelical Protestants and conservatives from other denominations who are actively testing the limits of their political power to impose their morality on society as a whole as they once did. They are not just innocent Christians suddenly being blindsided by aggressive evil homosexuals. I don't know how old you are, but I am old enough to remember when homosexuality was illegal and subject to severe criminal penalties and violent acts against homosexuals were tolerated--all for for religious reasons. It's not just about a wedding cake.

OK well I don' t know all the intricacies of religious politics in the U.S but I am sure that this is only one extreme end of the entire issue and there are other positions within the religious rights and marriage law changes. From what I have read from the examples I have posted these are not extremists but everyday people.

Take for example Barronelle Stutzman a 74 year old woman who refused to create a floral arrangement for a same sex marriage. Just a single old women minding her own business and now in the middle of a Supreme Court case simply for not wanting to go against her conscience. Surely this is not an extreme example.

I dont think that because there is an extreme group going around trying to deny SSM negates the wrongs being done to these average citizens. I agree that any extreme position that wants to ban SSM altogether and deny gays and lesbians their rights is wrong. But there is a middle ground where we should be able to acknowledge and recognize that both sides are experiencing wrongs where their rights are denied and we should be able to reach a compromise somehow.

I have never said that SSM should not happen and acknowledge and recognise the right of secular society in making laws according to their consitutions and Human rights. But part of that is also upholding religious rights. We should be able to uphold peoples beliefs while also upholding peoples SSM rights.

I have read some organisations and government departments are doing just that. They are accommodating people to abstain from situations that may compromise their religion and pass the duty or service onto others who are willing to accommodate SSM. Rather some going around taking everyone to court they should be willing to compromise because belief is an important part of being human rather than being hostile to it. They should then just go to another service provider who is willing. Most people who are not willing to accommodate SSM are respectful of gays and lesbians and refer them to another business who can accommodate them.

 

[stevevw]

The inability to understand simple concepts is stunning.

Then most people are nice enough to elaborate to help those who are unable to understand.

 

[VirOptimus]

OK well I don' t know all the intricacies of religious politics in the U.S but I am sure that this is only one extreme end of the entire issue and there are other positions within the religious rights and marriage law changes. From what I have read from the examples I have posted these are not extremists but everyday people.

Take for example Barronelle Stutzman a 74 year old woman who refused to create a floral arrangement for a same sex marriage. Just a single old women minding her own business and now in the middle of a Supreme Court case simply for not wanting to go against her conscience. Surely this is not an extreme example.

I dont think that because there is an extreme group going around trying to deny SSM negates the wrongs being done to these average citizens. I agree that any extreme position that wants to ban SSM altogether and deny gays and lesbians their rights is wrong. But there is a middle ground where we should be able to acknowledge and recognize that both sides are experiencing wrongs where their rights are denied and we should be able to reach a compromise somehow.

I have never said that SSM should not happen and acknowledge and recognise the right of secular society in making laws according to their consitutions and Human rights. But part of that is also upholding religious rights. We should be able to uphold peoples beliefs while also upholding peoples SSM rights.

I have read some organisations and government departments are doing just that. They are accommodating people to abstain from situations that may compromise their religion and pass the duty or service onto others who are willing to accommodate SSM. Rather some going around taking everyone to court they should be willing to compromise because belief is an important part of being human rather than being hostile to it. They should then just go to another service provider who is willing. Most people who are not willing to accommodate SSM are respectful of gays and lesbians and refer them to another business who can accommodate them.

Now change ssm, gays and lesbians in your post to ”blacks” and tell me what it reads like.

 

[VirOptimus]

Then most people are nice enough to elaborate to help those who are unable to understand.

Im not nice unfortunatley.

 

[stevevw]

Yes, Mr. Phillips has a right to express his opinions and Viroptimus has a right to call them out as bigoted.

OK I get it. As I said Viroptimus is expressing a personal opinion which has not substance or fact to it. The difference is the courts have the right to establish the facts and truth of the law. A qualified and lawful opinion. Big difference. I'd rather rely on the qualified and lawful opinion than a layperson on the street as it has no credibility.

 

[Speedwell]

OK I get it. As I said Viroptimus is expressing a personal opinion which has not substance or fact to it.

Just as Mr. Phillips is expressing a personal opinion which has no substance or facts to it.

The difference is the courts have the right to establish the facts and truth of the law.

Only when the law is thought to have been violated. Viroptimus and Mr. Phillips expressing contrary opinions does not necessarily violate the law.

 

[stevevw]

wrong post

 

[stevevw]

Now change ssm, gays and lesbians in your post to ”blacks” and tell me what it reads like.

Big difference the bible says nothing about denying marriage based on race. But it does say something about marriage as far as being between a man and a woman. So the belief is something genuine and justified to be held under the 1st Amendment.

I realize you are hostile to religion from your past posts. In fact you are hostile towards white people and males from memory. So its a bit like the pot calling the kettle black for you to give an opinion on who is racists and gender equality lol and to trust your opinion on religious rights considering your attitude towards religion.

VirOptimus said:
#2555
White males usually have no qualms about giving answers about subjects they have no knowledge or experience about.
#2550
Its a very white male thing to do.

 

[VirOptimus]

Oh, another offended white man, just what the world needs.

 

[stevevw]

Just as Mr. Phillips is expressing a personal opinion which has no substance or facts to it.

No Mr Phillips is expressing a religious belief which is completely different to an opinion. Opinions are not protected by the Constituion whereas religious beliefs are.

Only when the law is thought to have been violated. Viroptimus and Mr. Phillips expressing contrary opinions does not necessarily violate the law.

No Viroptimus cannot go to the Supreme court and win a right to have his opinion recognized by law. Mr Phillips can have his belief recognise because its not an opinion..

 

[stevevw]

Oh, another offended white man, just what the world needs.

Say no more lol.

 

[VirOptimus]

No Mr Phillips is expressing a religious belief which is completely different to an opinion. Opinions are not protected by the Constituion whereas religious beliefs are. No Viroptimus cannot go to the Supreme court and win a right to have his opinion recognized by law. Mr Phillips can have his belief recognise because its not an opinion..

A religious belief is an opinion.

The rest is wrong, and its still bigoted.

But its ok, we know your true colours.

 

[Speedwell]

No Mr Phillips is expressing a religious belief which is completely different to an opinion.

No, it's just another opinion to those who don't hold it.

Opinions are not protected by the Constitution whereas religious beliefs are.

Opinions are not dealt with by the Constitution, whether religious or otherwise. The Constitution only has to do with the expression of opinions and actions taken based on them.

No Viroptimus cannot go to the Supreme court and win a right to have his opinion recognized by law.

Neither can Mr. Phillips. Only actions and statements can be considered by the courts. Opinions are out of their reach.

 

[Speedwell]

Big difference the bible says nothing about denying marriage based on race. But it does say something about marriage as far as being between a man and a woman. So the belief is something genuine and justified to be held under the 1st Amendment.

The 1st Amendment says nothing about religious beliefs except to guarantee that the government cannot interfere with them or prefer one over another. That a belief is Christian or that you think it is justified by an ancient religious text does not give it any different standing with respect to the first amendment than any other belief.

 

[hedrick]

The first amendment is not unlimited. Public accommodation laws were passed because many people felt that whites and blacks shouldn't mix, and in particular shouldn't marry. This was justified based on religion. You may say that the justification was bogus, but courts don't do exegesis.

Public accommodation laws say that whatever your religion may say about different races and their mixing, you can't refuse to serve people equally. I think this actually is a limitation of religion, but the US felt that people who run public businesses can't limit service, even if it's based on their religion. This doesn't, of course, limit their beliefs, but it does limit some some categories of actions based on those beliefs.

The current debate on LGBT issues is in the context of laws passed because of other types of discrimination, but in the original context it did limit ways in which a people engaged in certain businesses act, even if it's based on their religion. So the religious impact of LGBT questions isn't new; it's almost inherent in public accommodations laws.

As far as I can tell, the Supreme Court hasn't looked at all possible limits on there laws. I think most people agree that it's OK for the law to require you to sell things to anyone, even if they're KKK members. Where it gets murkier is services. But we probably also want to require hotels to accept everyone, and that can involve some services.

While not all possible cases have been resolved by the Supreme Court, I think it's pretty clear that you can't compel someone to express a view they disagree with. The most obvious recent case is making tee shirts with messages. Do you have to make any message the customer wants? That's murky, because you can argue that no reasonable person would take the writing no the tee shirt as representing the store's personal views. As far as I can tell, this particular case (Hands On Originals) won't get to the US Supreme Court. I think the same arguments would apply to making custom cakes with messages on them, but (1) the court failed to deal with the real issue of that case in making its ruling, and (2) the baker stopped the discussion with his prospective customer before the design of the cake was relevant. So as far as I know, these kinds of questions are currerntly unclear.

How about catering? I can see that someone might not want to cater a KKK event. But we might end up requiring it, because there are too many groups that are unpopular in some area of the country.

All of these things can in fact limit actions that in some cases might be based on religious views. Invoking religion doesn't give people unlimited freedom.

Personally I'd be willing to narrow the scope of public accommodation laws slightly, not covering things with messages. I'm not so sure about catering.

 

[Bradskii]

I have read some organisations and government departments are doing just that. They are accommodating people to abstain from situations that may compromise their religion and pass the duty or service onto others who are willing to accommodate SSM. Rather some going around taking everyone to court they should be willing to compromise because belief is an important part of being human rather than being hostile to it. They should then just go to another service provider who is willing. Most people who are not willing to accommodate SSM are respectful of gays and lesbians and refer them to another business who can accommodate them.

If that's not the best idea I'll see today then it will take a really good one to beat it.

 

[Astroqualia]

The catholic church is full of heresy, is this really surprising?