Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I see. Meaning it was not a legal relationship. And which effectively banned homosexual marriage in the state.Illegal =/= unrecognized
They weren't doing anything illegal. It's just that the ceremony wouldn't be regcognized as a legally binding union.
Meaning the CO state anti discrimination law was in conflict with the highest law of the state which discriminated against homosexual marriage by defining marriage as being btwn a man and a women.The legal status of their union was and is irrelevant to CO state anti discrimination law that includes sexual orientation as a protected class.
The plain fact is that the case was brought on the grounds of discrimination due to the baker only recognizing marriage as defined by Bible and the state constitution.The case was not brought on the grounds of discrimination based on marital status, that is a plain fact.
Of course it was a legal relationship. It just wasn't a recognized one.I see. Meaning it was not a legal relationship. And which effectively banned homosexual marriage in the state.
It was not a valid, legally recognized marriage, and effectively banned them as being so.Of course it was a legal relationship. It just wasn't a recognized one.
It was not a legally recognized marriage, and effectively banned them:
On November 3, 1992, Colorado voters approved Amendment 2, which added language to the state constitution that prohibited the state and all of its subdivisions from allowing "homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships" to provide the basis for any "claim any minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination." Colorado Amendment 43 - Wikipedia
Colorado Amendment 43: Gay marriage banned; domestic ...
https://www.denverpost.com/.../colorado-amendment-43-gay-marriage-banned-domes...
Nov 8, 2006 - Colorado Amendment 43: Gay marriage banned; domestic partnerships also
Meaning the CO state anti discrimination law was in conflict with the highest law of the state which discriminated against homosexual marriage by defining marriage as being btwn a man and a women.
Meaning the CO state anti discrimination law was in conflict with the highest law of the state which discriminated against homosexual marriage by defining marriage as being btwn a man and a women.Which has what to do with the law that was broken?
Not being regconnized doesn't mean that holding a ceremony for one's own purposes is illegal. It's perfectly legal to perform the ceremony regardless of whether the state sanctions it.It was not a valid, legally recognized marriage, and effectively banned them as being so.
Irrelevant. It was a service that at issue, but it i was a wedding cake. Which was for the expressed purpose of celebrating a union not legally recognized as legal by the state. Meaning again, the the baker was punished for essentially only recognizing marriage as defined by the state, but the the CO state anti discrimination law was in conflict with the highest law of the state which discriminated against homosexual marriage by defining marriage as being btwn a man and a women.No, because the product or service covered by the antidiscrimination laws was not a wedding but a cake.
Meaning one could legally celebrate obtaining a gun he was not legally licensed to have, which still means that one is (legally) celebrating that which is not legal.Not being regconnized doesn't mean that holding a ceremony for one's own purposes is illegal. It's perfectly legal to perform the ceremony regardless of whether the state sanctions it.
You can be arrested for having drugs or guns you are not authorized to have. A couple that holds a wedding ceremony that is not recognized by the state has done nothing illegal and cannot be arrested for calling themselves married. Nothing illegal has transpired.Meaning one could legally celebrate obtaining a gun he was not legally licensed to have, which still means that one is (legally) celebrating that which is not legal.
Meaning again, the the baker was punished for essentially only recognizing marriage
They would not be arrested for the celebration any more than celebrating a teen as a senior citizen, but of course they have done something illegal if claiming legal marital status for that which is not legally recognized, and constitutionally banned as having special rights.You can be arrested for having drugs or guns you are not authorized to have. A couple that holds a wedding ceremony that is not recognized by the state has done nothing illegal and cannot be arrested for calling themselves married. Nothing illegal has transpired.
If they presented themselves as not being married in legal contracts (or in such a provision as SS) then they could be doing something wrong and illegal, and helping them to do so could make you complicit in it.I should add that I know of an older Christian heterosexual couple that had a church wedding and specifically did NOT file with the state. They wanted their marriage recognized by their friends, church, and presumably, God. But they did not want the legal status because it would mess up their retirement finances.
Is their marriage illegal or just unrecognized? Did they break a law? No.
Meaning the CO state anti discrimination law was in conflict with the highest law of the state which discriminated against homosexual marriage by defining marriage as being btwn a man and a women.
I was responding to another poster’s comment that “Discrimination that runs up against a Christian's (or insert other religion's) First Amendment rights should fall.”Indeed, evangelical leaders were at the forefront of the abolition movement, and very much overall show a special love for Jews, and defend Israel, while it is liberals who have been the ones harassing and even physically attacking conservatives in restaurants, etc., and work to exclude them from the marketplace. And as here, to demonize those who refuse to be complicit in celebrating immorality, as if they were KKK members.
But the case at issue here is not that a business saying “no Jews served here,” but that of refusing to contract to create a work for the expressed purpose of celebrating an event that was against the law of God - as were other events the baker also refused service for - as well as (at the time) being contrary to the highest law of the state.
Straights would also be denied contracting to create a work for the purpose of celebrating a homosexual wedding, or that btwn man and animal, or divorce, while homosexuals could contract for a birthday or graduation cake, etc., or possibly a cake for their wedding or anniversary if one had asked, and not said it was for a homosexual wedding, the nature of which being the issue.
Thus rather than denying a class of people any service (as per your analogy) or the same freedom others have, no class of people could contract for the celebration of any clearly immoral purpose.
Rather than this being analogous to your “no Jews served here" analogy, as regards Jews it is akin to that of a Jewish (or Muslim market) that supplies animal meat denying a request for ham, which lovers of swine flesh could say was discrimination, though as in the Masterpiece case, a number of other businesses would supply what was requested.
But can a bakery state it considers homosexual wedding to be morally no-kosher and thus refuse to facilitate celebrating them?
What you can argue is that this denial would be akin to a business refusing to create a work for anyone for the expressed purpose of the celebration of a racially mixed marriage, just as the business refused to create other works for celebrations it considered immoral.
Homosexual unions are not a matter of race, yet affirming this as a religious right could lead to allowing a Muslim bakery refusing to agree to create a work for anyone for the expressed purpose of the celebration of a Jewish bar mizpeh.
Courts would most likely uphold the right of a commercial painter to choose what he will paint, and refuse to create images he considers phonographic, but lovers of such are not provided the rights as a class that race, and now sexual orientation and behavior have. Thus as said, it is the latter that is the problem, making race, which is amoral, equal to a sexual attraction (even if fluid) and behavior.
The case wasn’t brought by the baker, and was not about the baker not recognizing their marriage. Same sex marriage is not a protected status. Sexual orientation is. The discrimination complaint was on the grounds of the baker not providing a wedding cake to a gay couple. It’s not as if the baker had to recognize their marriage to bake a freaking cake.The plain fact is that the case was brought on the grounds of discrimination due to the baker only recognizing marriage as defined by Bible and the state constitution.
If your excerpt, without link, is correct then the university policy is for all students not to engage in premarital sex. Or is it a case of a gay couple married according to Canadian law?The university made students promise not to have extra-marital or gay sex.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?