Retirement communities...next SSM legal dispute

SilverBear

Well-Known Member
Sep 2, 2016
7,359
3,297
57
Michigan
✟166,106.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
Judging by all the cases I have on file on my computer, homosexuals agitators do not understand what treating someone like a human being is. If you don't agree with them you are trash in their eyes.

I will give you one pertinent example. A friend of mine wrote a book about homosexuality with over 700 footnotes. At the launch of it which was in a church and by invitation only, the homosexual rent-a-mob turned up blowing whistles, banging drums and shouting out obscenities.

I am not clear how that is treating the people at the book launch like human beings.
what book was that?
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,643
14,530
Here
✟1,196,492.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Judging by all the cases I have on file on my computer, homosexuals agitators do not understand what treating someone like a human being is. If you don't agree with them you are trash in their eyes.

I will give you one pertinent example. A friend of mine wrote a book about homosexuality with over 700 footnotes. At the launch of it which was in a church and by invitation only, the homosexual rent-a-mob turned up blowing whistles, banging drums and shouting out obscenities.

I am not clear how that is treating the people at the book launch like human beings.

So even if this anecdote does have any merit (and anecdotes are hit or miss...forgive me, but I don't know you therefore you could just be another person making up anecdotes on the internet), do you not see the stark difference between someone showing up to yell at something they don't like, and using the force of law to strip rights away from another group?

That'd be like comparing an isolated, boisterous KKK rally to Jim Crow laws. Obviously both are bad, but they're nowhere even near the same ballpark in terms of the impact they have on other people's lives.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,643
14,530
Here
✟1,196,492.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
This has zero to do with preferential treatment and everything to do with the meaning of marriage. Jesus defined marriage as when a man leaves his mother and father, clings unto his wife, and the two become one flesh. Biblically-adherent Christians are not permitted to redefine it to appease the culture.

It precisely has to do with preferential treatment.

Worded more succinctly, far-right Christians were upset when US government laws were altered and no longer reflected the laws laid out in their preferred religious text.

Now, I would say that the easy solution to this is just to get rid of licensed marriage (and the legal benefits that go with it altogether) and let's not have the government involved in relationships at all.

However, most folks in the traditional marriage camp can't seem to genuine when they recommend that considering that most of them supported DOMA.


All of that is false liberal rhetoric.

No one really cared about the Starbucks cup. A mention of a detrimental change in Starbucks policy of creating a cool new Christmas mug each year is not "crying". It was mentioned in a few articles and opinion pieces. That's it. And people went on with their lives. Many liked the Christmas scenes on the cups every year. Plain red was not a good seller and Starbucks reversed it. You can get a plain red mug anywhere, anytime. You completely missed the point on this and it isn't applicable anyway.


Really? People didn't care? Is that why there were folks referring to is as a "war on Christmas"?

http://fortune.com/2015/11/09/starbucks-red-cups/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...k-video/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b3808f0918ae

“It’s not just about a cup,” he explained in an e-mail to The Washington Post. “The cup is symbolic of a larger war against Christianity in this country. The policemen of political correctness have demanded that the silent majority bend its knee to a vocal minority.” He added: “Starbucks and others know that Americans are drawing a line in the sand and refusing to remain silent any longer.”

In the video, Feuerstein added that he wore a Jesus Christ T-shirt into the store “just to offend” — and also brought his gun with him, since Starbucks “hates” the Second Amendment. (Starbucks has expressed disapproval of guns in its locations in the past, but not banned them. Arizona, meanwhile, is an open-carry state.)
 
Upvote 0

Episaw

Always learning
Nov 12, 2010
2,547
603
Drouin, Victoria, Australia
✟38,829.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
CA-Conservatives
So even if this anecdote does have any merit (and anecdotes are hit or miss...forgive me, but I don't know you therefore you could just be another person making up anecdotes on the internet), do you not see the stark difference between someone showing up to yell at something they don't like, and using the force of law to strip rights away from another group?

That'd be like comparing an isolated, boisterous KKK rally to Jim Crow laws. Obviously both are bad, but they're nowhere even near the same ballpark in terms of the impact they have on other people's lives.
Have a nice day.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,643
14,530
Here
✟1,196,492.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Have a nice day.

So you don't actually have a rebuttal to the points I made then?

The fact remains that you've only provided anecdotal examples (and proceeded to tell us that you have 700 cases documented on you computer) and expressed that your friend wrote a book about it and that people showed up to protest it.

Care to give specifics of that encounter? Title of the book, what it was about in particular?

For all we know right now, it was a book intentionally designed to provoke, and when it got the expected response from the community it targeted, your friend then flipped the script and made themselves a victim of the "intolerant left"...as many right wing authors tend to do.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RestoreTheJoy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 13, 2018
5,088
1,643
Passing Through
✟450,057.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
It precisely has to do with preferential treatment.

Worded more succinctly, far-right Christians were upset when US government laws were altered and no longer reflected the laws laid out in their preferred religious text.

Now, I would say that the easy solution to this is just to get rid of licensed marriage (and the legal benefits that go with it altogether) and let's not have the government involved in relationships at all.

However, most folks in the traditional marriage camp can't seem to genuine when they recommend that considering that most of them supported DOMA.





Really? People didn't care? Is that why there were folks referring to is as a "war on Christmas"?

http://fortune.com/2015/11/09/starbucks-red-cups/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...k-video/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b3808f0918ae

“It’s not just about a cup,” he explained in an e-mail to The Washington Post. “The cup is symbolic of a larger war against Christianity in this country. The policemen of political correctness have demanded that the silent majority bend its knee to a vocal minority.” He added: “Starbucks and others know that Americans are drawing a line in the sand and refusing to remain silent any longer.”

In the video, Feuerstein added that he wore a Jesus Christ T-shirt into the store “just to offend” — and also brought his gun with him, since Starbucks “hates” the Second Amendment. (Starbucks has expressed disapproval of guns in its locations in the past, but not banned them. Arizona, meanwhile, is an open-carry state.)
It is not at all about preferential treatment. It is about the meaning of marriage, which was commonly understood until the last few years, and needed no explanation. Marriage is a societal construct as well as a biblical one. You cannot simply redefine it. It is only privileged in the tax law in the first place for the benefit of children and their parents - families. There is no issue in same sex relationships. They are relationships but they are not "marriage".

I do believe we are going to have to have churches retain the control and not the government in reference to marriage licenses, the way things are going, now that that horse is out of the barn.

The opinion piece about the Starbucks cup is just that. An opinion piece. Few people really care enough about Starbucks and their questionable values to care about their mugs. This guy was just stirring the pot. One guy. Millions just go about their business and buy their holiday mugs where they can.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,643
14,530
Here
✟1,196,492.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
It is not at all about preferential treatment. It is about the meaning of marriage, which was commonly understood until the last few years, and needed no explanation. Marriage is a societal construct as well as a biblical one. You cannot simply redefine it. It is only privileged in the tax law in the first place for the benefit of children and their parents - families. There is no issue in same sex relationships. They are relationships but they are not "marriage".

I do believe we are going to have to have churches retain the control and not the government in reference to marriage licenses, the way things are going, now that that horse is out of the barn.

The opinion piece about the Starbucks cup is just that. An opinion piece. Few people really care enough about Starbucks and their questionable values to care about their mugs. This guy was just stirring the pot. One guy. Millions just go about their business and buy their holiday mugs where they can.

If it's a societal and biblical construct, then it has no place being given legal benefits under US law per the 1st amendment.

You can't take a societal institution, mandate that the biblical version of said institution be adhered to, attach legal & tax benefits to those who enter into it, and then turn around and restrict a sizable portion of the population from being able to access it.

If it's a societal & biblical institution, then the government should have no part in it, and it shouldn't come with any legal or financial(tax) benefits. If we want it to have those benefits, then it needs to be defined a legal institution and be inclusive per amendments 1 & 14.

You can't have it both ways here...

The ideal you're describing is precisely the type of thing the first amendment is protecting against...which is giving special benefits to certain people based on adherence to a particular religious code.


Like I said before, I'm 100% cool with getting the government out of it and giving the concept of "marriage" to the churches and let the dozen+ denominations of Christianity fight over how they want to define it among their own ranks, but if that's the route to be taken, I want all legal and tax benefits removed from it.
 
Upvote 0

RestoreTheJoy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 13, 2018
5,088
1,643
Passing Through
✟450,057.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
If you read the article, it stated that the women chose this facility because it could provide a higher level of assistance without higher cost. (Which implies at least one of them has medical issues.) The article also says the couple informed a representative about their relationship. And they were initially told it was no problem. So they paid the deposit and assumed everything was a go. They wanted to be honest and up-front regarding their marriage. So they're contending not only were they victims of unlawful discrimination, but they were misled. And now it's in the hands of the federal courts.

It takes an extraordinarily jaundiced attitude to think that 2 elderly women, possibly having medical problems and seeking a retirement home capable of accommodating them within their budget, actually have an ulterior motive to harass such a facility with litigation. If that's not paranoia, then what is?


The complaint says otherwise - these ladies were not honest and up front about it, paying a deposit without ever mentioning their situation. After numerous visits and finally putting down some money, an administrator later called to ask about their legal status, and only then did they reveal they were legally spouses married in Massachusetts (when it wasn't legal nationally). The board of directors who had defined as policy that marriage was one man and one woman declined their application.

So then the ladies waged the battle on the meaning of the retirement home Cohabitation policy, which apparently holds that residents can't shack up and they began arguing that other couples shacking up had been denied as well. This should be fine, but today, you have to pretend that live in couples are exactly the same committed couples as married couples (as a landlord or housing provider such as this one) which is silly, but I digress.

The retirement home was warned to change the policy to avoid litigation. It refused. Hence, litigation, trotting out all the big wigs in the same sex marriage lobby, including an attorneys for the ACLU, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and Relman, Dane, and Colfax a Washington Law firm who show up in a whole lot of the transgender and same sex cases that get a lot of press.
 
Upvote 0

RestoreTheJoy

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jul 13, 2018
5,088
1,643
Passing Through
✟450,057.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
If it's a societal and biblical construct, then it has no place being given legal benefits under US law per the 1st amendment.

You can't take a societal institution, mandate that the biblical version of said institution be adhered to, attach legal & tax benefits to those who enter into it, and then turn around and restrict a sizable portion of the population from being able to access it.

.

That's not what happened. No one has ever restricted anyone from accessing marriage; the fight was on redefining it to mean something other than marriage, which is a man and a woman becoming one. If you you suddenly deciding that your ice cubes are now hot (because you have redefined cold to mean hot), you can do that I guess, no matter how nonsensical. You cannot demand that I acquiesce to your new definition. Nope. Your ice cubes are still going to be icy cold if you change the language and force me by legal penalty to refer to them as hot (even though they aren't). You cannot change what is truth.

Marriage has always meant what it meant, a man leaving his father and mother and cleaving unto his wife and the two became one flesh, certainly since the genesis of this country. All people of legal age have always been free to get married. They just weren't free to redefine marriage.

But now that has happened. Our Supreme Court has actually had the audacity to attempt to redefine marriage.

God will have the last word on it. And indeed He does, in the scriptures.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,643
14,530
Here
✟1,196,492.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
That's not what happened. No one has ever restricted anyone from accessing marriage; the fight was on redefining it to mean something other than marriage, which is a man and a woman becoming one. If you you suddenly deciding that your ice cubes are now hot (because you have redefined cold to mean hot), you can do that I guess, no matter how nonsensical. You cannot demand that I acquiesce to your new definition. Nope. Your ice cubes are still going to be icy cold if you change the language and force me by legal penalty to refer to them as hot (even though they aren't). You cannot change what is truth.

Marriage has always meant what it meant, a man leaving his father and mother and cleaving unto his wife and the two became one flesh, certainly since the genesis of this country. All people of legal age have always been free to get married. They just weren't free to redefine marriage.

...but you're still circumnavigating the point I was making. Which is, if this definition was based on a religious value, then the government never had any business attaching legal and taxation benefits to it.

If the definition of this institution has roots in religion (and from what you're saying, it does) then the legal benefits of it need to be removed...or, if you want the legal benefits to remain, then it needs to be redefined as a legal institution and not a religious one.

Do you agree that the government should be out of the marriage licensing business then?...and that the legal benefits should be removed from said institution?
 
Upvote 0