Send a Message
to lides

Comments

16,893

Joined

Jan 29, 2008

Badges

lides Profile

Recent Posts

Gay/Lesbian

Judge Strikes Down NC Gay Marriage Ban

In your opinion. If you believe so, then don't participate. You have no right to dictate to others what they may, or may not, do or believeAnd? It might shock you just how many people participate in that particular sin. http://www.slate.c om/articles/health _and_science/human _nature/2005/09/as s_backwards.htmlTh at would first require my belief in him.  (2 hrs ago | post #157)

Gay/Lesbian

Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions

The reality is that your argument of inferiority was never relevant. You simply lack the ability to offer a valid argument. If inferiority were applicable on the basis you so desperately wish it to be, the state wouldn't allow infertile heterosexual couples to legally marry, and they would annul marriages at menopause. They do neither, which illustrates the inaccuracy of your assertionDear dumb person. Merely being fertile does not grant legal rights and protections. Civil marriage is required for legal protection. What is more, fertility is not a prerequisite for civil marriageRemove the near, and you will have finally gotten something correct for a change.  (2 hrs ago | post #656)

Gay/Lesbian

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

No, you haven't even attempted to do so. Was he barred from going to church? Was he prevented from praying in his home or business? Was it dictated to him what denomination he might be able to choose? No, he was asked to bake a cake. Tell me how baking a cake, which his business exists to do, defies the baker's religious freedomIt is true. Civil marriage is a legal contract that exists to secure certain legal rights and protections. Period. End of storyYou keep claiming bias, but you do not offer specific examples or counter arguments, nor do you acknowledge the the "biased" decision was upheld by the non-partisan Colorado Civil Rights Commission. At the end of the day, the reason you are having so much difficulty defending the baker because they broke the lawIf the shoe fits... You are intolerant of the views of others. The couple in question didn't seek to enjoin the baker from practicing his religion, they asked him to bake a cake, which they would pay for. It was not an unreasonable request of a bakerIt is obvious that you claim to speak for all Americans, and in the next sentence argue for discrimination. Your views are pathetic.  (2 hrs ago | post #4088)

Gay/Lesbian

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

Sorry, kiddo, I don't hate anybody. I support the baker's free exercise, and were that right actually threatened, I would support him. What we have here is somewhat different. The baker wants to require potential customers to abide by his interpretation of his religious moral views in order to obtain service. That is a violation of the law, and arguably is a violation of the would be customer's free exercise of religion. You see, I am tolerant of the baker's religious beliefs, I am not tolerant of them breaking the lawBecause when you avail yourself of a service, you pay for it. Otherwise it is called stealing. What were you attempting to say hereTheir motivations are their own, and they change from one couple to the next just like straight couples. However, their motivation, or how they choose to celebrate their marriage is utterly irrelevant to the topic at handYou consistently lie, and your lies are completely transparent. You will argue, in the same breath, that you speak for all americans, and then turn and advocate discriminationI want the government to enforce the law. The law requires the free exercise of religion, but prevents places of public accommodation from projecting their religious moral beliefs onto others. Doing so would be a direct violation of the free exercise of religion of the consumer.  (2 hrs ago | post #4087)

Gay/Lesbian

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

His reasoning on that point was quite sound. "The salient feature distinguishing same-sex weddings from heterosexual ones is the sexual orientation of its participants. Only same-sex couples engage in same-sex weddings. Therefore, it makes little sense to argue that refusal to provide a cake to a same-sex couple for use at their wedding is not “because of” their sexual orientation." You have made no argument to the contraryAnti-discr imination laws do exactly what their name would imply, prevent discrimination. The baker has no right to discriminate against the gay couple, nor would providing the service in any way impact his free exercise of religion, free speech, or any other rightIf they operate a place of public accommodation, I expect them to provide their services equally to any who would seek them, particularly when the law requires them to do so. I know this will come as a great shock to you, but there are people who think all non-white people, women, and Jews are lesser people. Anti-discriminatio n laws exist to protect the rights of consumers and employees, enforcing them does not violate any right or freedom of business owners. If you break the law, you should expect that there will be consequencesNo, you stand for freedom only for those you approve ofThey were punished for breaking the law. Their punishment was to be told not to break the law again. They ELECTED to stop selling wedding cakes altogether rather than serve same sex couples. Any and all damage to their business is by their own choiceAnd, providing service equally doesn't do that. You've yet to articulate a single way in which providing a service to someone with differing beliefs in any way impacts the proprietor's free exercise. You keep on reiterating arguments that have been debunked in court, as well as on this forum ad nauseum. The reality is that the baker's rights were never even threatened, and their actions were illegal.  (2 hrs ago | post #4086)

Gay/Lesbian

ACLU: N. Idaho chapel now a religious corporation

What a surprise. They lose their minds over the issue initially, when there is a perfectly simple solution that produces the result they were looking for.  (2 hrs ago | post #11)

Gay/Lesbian

Christian Pastors Given Choice: Perform Same-Sex Weddings...

""Two Ministers Ordered To Perform Same-Sex Wedding Face Jail, Fines," reads an article on the ADF's own website. That can only be true if indeed the Knapps were "ordered to perform [a] same-sex wedding." They have not been. Nor do they currently face jail time or fines. Meanwhile, on Sunday, super-sleuth blogger and LGBT activist Jeremy Hooper reported that recently, the Hitching Post's website was changed from reading: We also perform wedding ceremonies of other faiths as well as civil weddings. To: The Hitching Post specializes in small, short, intimate, and private weddings for couples who desire a traditional Christian wedding ceremony. But in an article published earlier today at none other than the Coeur d'Alene Press, the extent of the right wing's madness seems to have been exposed. "When contacted by The [Coeur d'Alene] Press for comment, Don Knapp said the Hitching Post is not operating as a not-for-profit religious corporation." So, now they have a problem. Worse, so may the Alliance Defending Freedom. Donald Knapp also told the Coeur d'Alene Press he doesn't even know the ADF attorney who has been emailing with the City of Coeur d'Alene. And even worse for the ADF's case: "We have never threatened to jail them, or take legal action of any kind," said city spokesman Keith Erickson." http://www.thenewc ivilrightsmovement .com/davidbadash/h ow_many_lies_is_th e_religious_right_ willing_to_tell_in _the_idaho_for_pro fit_wedding_chapel _story  (3 hrs ago | post #221)

Gay/Lesbian

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

If one doesn't want to bake cakes for people, then they shouldn't become a baker. Problem solved.  (4 hrs ago | post #4081)

Gay/Lesbian

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

Tell me, how would providing the cake for a same sex wedding in any way impact the free exercise of religion of the baker? Be specificSorry, kiddo, at the end of the day civil marriage is defined and administered by the state. Try againNo, it is a set of businesses set up to provide services for the generation of profitNo, it doesn't. A cake isn't a sacrament, kiddo, it's a baked good. This bigoted hypocrite is running "Masterpiece Cakeshop," not the "Materpiece Cake ChapelHow do you think the case got the ALJ? The law is on the books, and it is valid. The baker admittedly broke the lawAndHere's your problem. Requiring a for profit business to provide equal services to all comers has no bearing upon the free exercise of religion of the owner, or of any of the employees. If one were to apply your own logic, what would stop an employee from refusing to bake a cake for an interracial wedding (that the owner approves of) based upon their own personal religious objections? You see, the problem with your argument is that the baker's free exercise is not in question, but rather that they wish to thrust their religious beliefs onto their customers, requiring them to meet the baker's interpretation of his religious moral beliefs in order to obtain service. That is rather dangerous rhetoricOf course, notSorry, kiddo, you're out of gas. Requiring a for profit business to render the same services to anyone who would request them is not unconstitutional, and it in no way weighs upon the religious freedom of the proprietorActually , it can. It can also require that equality under the law be afforded to all persons within a state's jurisdictionNo, you don't. You support only those you agree with, and actively argue for discrimination against those you don't agree with, which fundamentally undercuts your assertion that you stand for all Americans.  (4 hrs ago | post #4079)

Gay/Lesbian

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

Kind of defeats the purpose, don't you think? Th reality here is simple, you don't support equality for all Americans, only those you agree with. the irony is that the baker wishes to discriminate because the couple in question does not hold the same religious beliefs. If we allowed such conduct across the board, it would effectively be the end of free exercise of religion, because anyone could be an irrational bigot bent upon deny service to anyone with differing religious beliefs. Business is business, and religion is religion. In order for free exercise to exist and be effective, there must be tolerance of dissenting views. In that way, the baker is actually arguing against free exercise for anyone who holds differing beliefs. Your argument on this point is inept, and providing the cake would in no way infringe upon any right or freedom of the bakerThe government didn't punish him because of his beliefs, they punished him because he broke the law. That said, the government didn't really punish him at all. They ordered him to provide the same services to everyone, at which point he ELECTED to stop offering wedding cakes. Faceit, kiddo, the bigoted hypocrite broke the law.  (4 hrs ago | post #4077)

Gay/Lesbian

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

Nor am I. I am, however, expecting the government to uphold the law, which is what they did. There is no question that the baker broke the law, they stipulated to that fact in courtFunny, I'm not the one advocating a business to require a client to abide by the religious moral views of the proprietor in order to obtain service. That would be intolerant. I've not said anything injurious to the free exercise or free speech of the baker. Their rights and freedoms were never even threatened. That said, their right to religious freedom does not give them a free pass to ignore laws they find inconvenientThe government has not done so. There is an anti-discriminatio n law on the books in Colorado. The baker broke the law. No one asked for the baker's support, participation, or celebration, the couple ordered a cake. Providing said cake in no way rises to the level of support, participation, or celebration; and in no way infringes upon any right or freedom of the baker. Don't take my word for it, read the decision of the ALJ, and look at the appeal to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Face it kiddo, you have no legal leg to stand upon. Your arguments have all been addressed and defeated in a court of law.  (4 hrs ago | post #4075)

Gay/Lesbian

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

Congratulations, you have just reaffirmed that you have nothing to offer to the debate, and that you are too stupid to even understand the concepts that The Box has presented here. Face it kiddo, the baker broke the law. The court held the baker had broken the law. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission affirmed the ruling of the court. The baker's punishment was a reprimand requiring him to provide equal service in the future. The baker elected to stop baking wedding cakes altogether, which satisfies the ruling. You are too dumb to offer a valid argument. You can't offer a rational defense of his action. You can't offer any specific way in which providing the service in question in any way violates any of the baker's rights. You are an idiot, Wondering.  (22 hrs ago | post #4057)

Gay/Lesbian

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

What's the matter, Frankie. Can't think of anything relevant to say? I don't suppose that comes as any surprise from someone to dumb to count or understand what equal means. Well played, Frankie, you've reaffirmed that you aren't very bright.  (Yesterday | post #4044)

Gay/Lesbian

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

Here's a clue, kiddo. Civil marriage is defined and administered by governmentAnd they did. "The salient feature distinguishing same-sex weddings from heterosexual ones is the sexual orientation of its participants. Only same-sex couples engage in same-sex weddings. Therefore, it makes little sense to argue that refusal to provide a cake to a same-sex couple for use at their wedding is not “because of” their sexual orientation." https://www.aclu.o rg/sites/default/f iles/assets/initia l_decision_case_no ._cr_2013-0008.pdf Of course, that has no impact upon his free exercise of religion, free speech, or any other right or freedomNo, it targets those who would wield their religion as a weapon, or require clients to conform the the business owner's interpretation of their religious views in order to obtain service. Such an action is a patent violation of free exercise of religion of the would be client. You don't support freedom and equality for all, you support those who agree with youThe DA didn't initiate action, the couple who had been discriminated against did. What we saw, in this instance, was the court correcting a business owner who had broken the law. Which is to say, the system workedSorry, kiddo, they weren't asked to officiate over the wedding, or to endorse the union. They were asked to provide a cake. We don't even know if they were requested to deliver to the venue and set up, because the discussion was terminated far before such details could be addressed. The reality is that even if delivery had been requested, and paid for, it still would have absolutely no impact whatsoever upon any of the business owner's rightsOf course, the government didn't intervene over the baker's religious views. They intervened because he broke the lawEquality under the law, is guaranteed by the US Constitution, and anti-discriminatio n laws have regularly been upheld as constitutional. The baker broke the laws of the state of Colorado, his punishment was to be reprimanded, and ordered to provide equal service to all. He elected to stop selling wedding cakes altogether, which fulfills the order of the court. In the grand scheme of life, he got off light for breaking the law.  (Yesterday | post #4042)

Gay/Lesbian

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

No, every time you post you argue that religious freedom allows one to ignore laws they find inconvenient, and you argue for business owners to require potential clients to conform to the religious beliefs of the business owner in order to obtain service. You are arguing for all Americans, you are specifically arguing for discrimination. Your constant claims to the contrary do nothing to negate this factDoes the government have the right to enforce the law? The baker admitted in fact six that they had broken the laws of the State of Colorado. Enforcing the law is not fascism, it's justice. The reality remains that you cannot articulate a single specific way in which providing a cake for a same sex wedding would infringe upon any of the baker's rights. The reality is that providing such a service impacts his rights in no way at all, a fact that has been ruled upon by an administrative law judge, whose decision was affirmed by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. You don't support freedom for all, you support freedom for those you agree with, and you support discrimination. Face it, kiddo, tolerance is a necessity to have actual freedom.  (Yesterday | post #4038)

Q & A with lides

Headline:

No Headline available

Hometown:

Defiance, Ohio

Neighborhood:

brow

Local Favorites:

Patrick's, The Lantern, Viva, Barrington Brewery

I Belong To:

The Human Race

When I'm Not on Topix:

I am elsewhere

Read My Forum Posts Because:

Read them or not, my opinion is my own.

I'm Listening To:

Tosca

Read This Book:

It Can Happen Here

Favorite Things:

brown paper packages tied up with strings

I Believe In:

equality