If you missed it: More than 50% of Americans now live in states where SSM is legal.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Vylo

Stick with the King!
Aug 3, 2003
24,732
7,790
43
New Jersey
✟203,465.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
So many rulings being pushed through and stays being lifted has resulted in a flurry of states becoming SSM legal.

As of now 28 of the 50 states, and 58.5% of the population are areas were SSM is legal. I think this exceeds my predictions, though time will tell if we will see 100% before 2022 ( I think I predicted 10 years in 2012).

There are currently 6 more states with stayed rulings, which if they also change over will make it 79% of the population.

It's good to see this conflict finally coming to an end, but I'm sure some will go kicking and screaming.
 

GarfieldJL

Regular Member
Dec 10, 2012
7,872
673
✟26,292.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0

Vylo

Stick with the King!
Aug 3, 2003
24,732
7,790
43
New Jersey
✟203,465.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Upvote 0

Armoured

So is America great again yet?
Supporter
Aug 31, 2013
34,358
14,061
✟234,967.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
b99098dd11190ffab8d62f2ced57eb1e89fc25bf3c279808528b18a55a2b1a21.jpg
 
Upvote 0

GarfieldJL

Regular Member
Dec 10, 2012
7,872
673
✟26,292.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
They are still free to hold such beliefs.

Vylo, the statement you made above, isn't factually accurate (I'm trying to be polite about this).

When people are being told to either: "Give up their religious beliefs, or give up their business." Then that is persecuting someone based on their religious beliefs.

When you tell someone that they have to do something that violates their core religious beliefs, or they have to give up their business, then that persecution.

If wouldn't have bothered a Christian baker, if a gay couple chose a different baker to bake a wedding cake. However the fact a Christian chose to decline to turn his back on his religious beliefs, caused a pro-homosexual group, and the government to force said Christian to have to shut down his bakery.

Right now, many on your side are guilty of the very bigotry that your side accuse people that disagree with your side due to their religious convictions of. One of the reasons why I opposed and still oppose the legalization of gay marriage, was because it was blatently obvious this persecution would happen, and that many on your side would be perfectly okay with it. I was okay with the idea of "civil unions," because it would be entirely secular in nature, if we ended up with rampant discrimination of gay couples then we could look at the issue then if further steps needed to be taken.

However, many on your side weren't interested in equality, they wanted to "get back at" those they feel whom slighted them. They were pushing this because they wanted to persecute those that disagree with them on this issue. Until people on your side take a stand, that persecuting those that disagree with you, is wrong, there quite frankly is absolutely no reason to respect your side at all (and every reason not to).

Example:
Thank you for providing an example Armoured, as to why people that disagree with pro-gay marriage supporters, have every reason not to respect pro-gay marriage supporters. If your side can't at least respect those that disagree with you, then my side is more than justified in having 0 respect for your side.
 
Upvote 0

Armoured

So is America great again yet?
Supporter
Aug 31, 2013
34,358
14,061
✟234,967.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Example:

Thank you for providing an example Armoured, as to why people that disagree with pro-gay marriage supporters, have every reason not to respect pro-gay marriage supporters. If your side can't at least respect those that disagree with you, then my side is more than justified in having 0 respect for your side.

I respect coherent arguments. Not attitude. It's not about "side". If you can come up with a coherent argument against SSM, I will respect, and probably support it.

I do not respect hysterical, hypocritical wowsers. I'll not apologise for it, either.
 
Upvote 0

GarfieldJL

Regular Member
Dec 10, 2012
7,872
673
✟26,292.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I respect coherent arguments. Not attitude. It's not about "side". If you can come up with a coherent argument against SSM, I will respect, and probably support it.

Armoured, I've explained numerous times that I believe marriage is a semi-religious issue that the only valid reason government had to even get involved in promoting it was incentivizing people to have children and stable households to raise said children.

I then asked why SSM should be allowed, what secular reason is there to justify upending a couple thousand years of historical tradition, when there may be ways that this could be handled without angering large portions of the population (this question was asked on an earlier thread concerning this issue)?

People on your side, never really answered (if I remember correctly a few like maybe cow451 actually put some thought into it), but your side didn't answer the question I posed.

I do not respect hysterical, hypocritical wowsers. I'll not apologise for it, either.

You mean like the caricature you posted?

Fact: at least one Christian Baker was forced to close his bakery, because he refused to violate his religious convictions.

Unless you are suggesting that Christians or people that don't believe as you do, are somehow not people, then I'm not giving into hysterics. Cause what I've voiced concern about has already happened in the United States (in multiple states).
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Vylo

Stick with the King!
Aug 3, 2003
24,732
7,790
43
New Jersey
✟203,465.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
When people are being told to either: "Give up their religious beliefs, or give up their business." Then that is persecuting someone based on their religious beliefs.

They aren't being asked that. They can still believe what they want.
 
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

GarfieldJL

Regular Member
Dec 10, 2012
7,872
673
✟26,292.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
They aren't being asked that. They can still believe what they want.

What you're saying isn't true Vylo... :redcard:

If someone is told to either do something that would support something that would completely violate their religious beliefs, or they lose their business entirely, then they are being persecuted for their religious beliefs.

If the gay couple in question had been tolerant individuals (which they aren't), they would have respected the baker's religious beliefs and simply asked another baker to bake the wedding cake. If the government was interested in upholding peoples' rights, then they would have thrown out the suit to force the baker to either turn his back on his religious beliefs or give up his business. Oh they even are forcing him to attend: "Diversity Training," if I remember correctly.

For as much as your side accuses mine of bigotry, people on your side (not everyone, but certainly a lot of them) need to address its own bigotry problem.
 
Upvote 0

Vylo

Stick with the King!
Aug 3, 2003
24,732
7,790
43
New Jersey
✟203,465.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
If someone is told to either do something that would support something that would completely violate their religious beliefs, or they lose their business entirely, then they are being persecuted for their religious beliefs.

How are they being asked to violate their religious beliefs?
 
Upvote 0

GarfieldJL

Regular Member
Dec 10, 2012
7,872
673
✟26,292.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Vylo said:
How are they being asked to violate their religious beliefs?
"This baker did not refuse to serve these people. He offered them his services – he just did not want to provide his services as part of a gay wedding ceremony," Land said in a Family Research Council radio show broadcast this week. "This would be like going to a bakery owned by an African-American, and saying, ‘By the way, you have to bake a cake for a KKK induction ceremony, under penalty of law.’" -- Quote of Pastor Richard Land as reported by Huffington Post
So do you believe an African-American Baker should be forced to bake a cake for a KKK induction ceremony? Cause by saying that a Christian Baker should be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding, that is precisely what you are currently suggesting.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Vylo

Stick with the King!
Aug 3, 2003
24,732
7,790
43
New Jersey
✟203,465.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others

"This baker did not refuse to serve these people. He offered them his services – he just did not want to provide his services as part of a gay wedding ceremony," Land said in a Family Research Council radio show broadcast this week. "This would be like going to a bakery owned by an African-American, and saying, ‘By the way, you have to bake a cake for a KKK induction ceremony, under penalty of law.’" -- Quote of Pastor Richard Land as reported by Huffington Post
So do you believe an African-American Baker should be forced to bake a cake for a KKK induction ceremony? Cause by saying that a Christian Baker should be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding, that is precisely what you are currently suggesting.

Uh, first that isn't what I'm suggesting. The KKK is a racist group that explicitly attacks minorities like blacks. That isn't religious at all. Black isn't a religion. And gays aren't attacking Christians. In fact many are Christian.

A better comparison would be like saying to me as an Atheist baker that I have to bake a cake for a Christian wedding even though Christianity goes against my religious beliefs, which it does, and I would bake the cake, because that is my job.

If you aren't willing to do your job for the general public as your clients, find another job. But good luck, because someone will always be or do something you don't like.
 
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

GarfieldJL

Regular Member
Dec 10, 2012
7,872
673
✟26,292.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Uh, first that isn't what I'm suggesting. The KKK is a racist group that explicitly attacks minorities like blacks. That isn't religious at all. Black isn't a religion. And gays aren't attacking Christians. In fact many are Christian.

Actually it kinda is what you are suggesting, Vylo.

The fact some homosexuals consider themselves to be Christian, doesn't change the fact that according to the religion they claim to be a part of, homosexual behavior is considered sinful.

If the baker refused to bake say cookiees for some generic celebration because the person making the request happened to be gay, then the baker would be practicing discrimination towards gays.

However, this is over the baking of a cake to be used for a specific event that celebrates and "legitimizes" a behavior that the baker considers to be sinful due to his religion. So by not finding fault with how the baker was treated, you are essentially saying that African American bakers should be forced to bake cakes for KKK induction ceremonies.

A better comparison would be like saying to me as an Atheist baker that I have to bake a cake for a Christian wedding even though Christianity goes against my religious beliefs, which it does, and I would bake the cake, because that is my job.

Okay back up a second, is Atheism a religion or isn't it, cause I've heard people try to have it both ways.

If you aren't willing to do your job for the general public as your clients, find another job. But good luck, because someone will always be or do something you don't like.

Then I guess African American bakers need to start baking cakes for KKK induction ceremonies. You can't have it both ways, Vylo.
 
Upvote 0

Armoured

So is America great again yet?
Supporter
Aug 31, 2013
34,358
14,061
✟234,967.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Armoured, I've explained numerous times that I believe marriage is a semi-religious issue that the only valid reason government had to even get involved in promoting it was incentivizing people to have children and stable households to raise said children.

I then asked why SSM should be allowed, what secular reason is there to justify upending a couple thousand years of historical tradition, when there may be ways that this could be handled without angering large portions of the population (this question was asked on an earlier thread concerning this issue)?

People on your side, never really answered (if I remember correctly a few like maybe cow451 actually put some thought into it), but your side didn't answer the question I posed.
I can answer it for you simply.

Because they want it, and there's no legitimate secular reason to deny them what they want. That's the fundamental tennet of libertarianism. People should be allowed to do what they like, assuming no significant reason not to.

You mean like the caricature you posted?

Fact: at least one Christian Baker was forced to close his bakery, because he refused to violate his religious convictions.

Unless you are suggesting that Christians or people that don't believe as you do, are somehow not people, then I'm not giving into hysterics. Cause what I've voiced concern about has already happened in the United States (in multiple states).

*eyeroll* I'm so sick of discussing that "Christian baker". Both "sides" (if you must) have put forth their arguments, the courts have ruled, it's done. Let it go. Your "side" lost. Not because of persecution. Because their arguments were not credible or logical. You want to defend "Christian bakers"? Come up with a better argument.

Further... if, for the sake of argument, we agree that your "Christian baker" was "forced to close his bakery" because of unfair anti-discrimination laws, then that is a good basis for arguing against those particular anti-discrimination laws. NOT an argument about SSM.

Now, can we please drop the dead-horse-beating, derailing, baker nonsense?
 
Upvote 0

Armoured

So is America great again yet?
Supporter
Aug 31, 2013
34,358
14,061
✟234,967.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Strong religious beliefs do not exempt you from the law. That's an entitlement mentality.

Further... if, for the sake of argument, we agree that your "Christian baker" was "forced to close his bakery" because of unfair anti-discrimination laws, then that is a good basis for arguing against those particular anti-discrimination laws. NOT an argument about SSM.
 
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

GarfieldJL

Regular Member
Dec 10, 2012
7,872
673
✟26,292.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I can answer it for you simply.

Because they want it, and there's no legitimate secular reason to deny them what they want. That's the fundamental tennet of libertarianism. People should be allowed to do what they like, assuming no significant reason not to.

The fact a particular group wants it, isn't a valid reason (I quite frankly don't care what activist judges say and largely have lost respect for the US Supreme Court since their Obamacare ruling (which was in and of itself unconstitutional, since they rewrote the law to make it "constitutional").

I have the perfect secular reason against it: the 14th Amendment. If there is no secular reason that would be in the government's interest (in fact I could see why they would have reason not to want it (primarily taxes)), then they are elevating one group of citizens above everyone else and giving them special status. Equal Protection under the law remember.

*eyeroll* I'm so sick of discussing that "Christian baker". Both "sides" (if you must) have put forth their arguments, the courts have ruled, it's done. Let it go. Your "side" lost. Not because of persecution. Because their arguments were not credible or logical. You want to defend "Christian bakers"? Come up with a better argument.

The courts are not God, the courts can get things wrong, the Dredd Scott case is a perfect example.

Further... if, for the sake of argument, we agree that your "Christian baker" was "forced to close his bakery" because of unfair anti-discrimination laws, then that is a good basis for arguing against those particular anti-discrimination laws. NOT an argument about SSM.

I'm not necessarily arguing the law itself needs to be gotten rid of or changed, I'm saying the court applied it in a manner that is not in keeping with the spirit or intent of said law, due to the judges' own bias.

Now, can we please drop the dead-horse-beating, derailing, baker nonsense?

If you're asking whether or not I'm going to stop pointing out the fact your side is engaging in bigotted behavior, the answer is no.

The easy thing to do would be for me to shut up about this, but it isn't the right thing to do, so I'm going to continue to talk about this.

Strong religious beliefs do not exempt you from the law. That's an entitlement mentality.

Then I guess African American bakers can be forced to bake cakes for KKK induction ceremonies...
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.