Send a Message
to lides

Comments

16,858

Joined

Jan 29, 2008

Badges

lides Profile

Recent Posts

Gay/Lesbian

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

It's still a cake. Baking a cake for someone with differing religious views in no way violates the baker's free exercise, or any other of the baker's rights. Period. End of storyI am calling for the government to punish those who break the law. To that end, would you care to tell us what grievous sentence the government heaped upon this poor downtrodden bakerWhat it marriage may or may not mean to them has no bearing upon the services that the provide at a for profit business that is a place of public accommodation. It certainly doesn't give them the right to provide service only to those who meet their religious moral standards, effectively creating a religious test in order to obtain service. Actually, it is even worse than that, it isn't just a religious test, but one based upon the business owner's interpretation of their religious beliefs. In effect, you are arguing for the baker to be able to project his religious beliefs onto every customer who walks through his doorsNo, you wouldn't. If someone denied you service because you believe in god, you would be whinging about the infringement of your religious beliefs, much as you do hereNo, you've repeated the claim ad nauseum, but you haven't offered a single way in which the baker's religious beliefs are infringed upon. That is in part because they weren't even threatened. Providing a service for someone holding differing beliefs does not infringe upon religious freedom. Following the law doesn't eitherThe non sale is a non event. They were denied service because they did not meet the baker's religious moral standards. Such a denial of service is illegal in the state of Colorado, and the baker's pathetic arguments that you continue to articulate here have failed in every forum in which they have been raised. Simply put, your argument has already been dispensed with as a matter of law. Providing the service in no way infringes upon the baker's religious freedom. The state levied no penalty upon the baker, he was instructed to provide equal service to everyone. The baker ELECTED to stop serving wedding cake altogether rather than face the potential of having to bake a cake for a same sex couple. The damage to the baker's business is entirely by his own hand.  (11 hrs ago | post #4006)

Gay/Lesbian

Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage?

Of course, that isn't at issue, and as the recent Utah case struck down laws barring cohabitation. However, that is a far cry from the legalization of polygamy, which by definition seeks greater protection under the law, for an increased number of persons. Were you able to count, you would understand why polygamy is not the next same sex marriage, and why the two really have no bearing upon one another.  (15 hrs ago | post #3048)

Gay/Lesbian

Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions

Did you bother to read the article, or did you just immediately assume that you knew what was in it? Here's the first paragraph: "Alarmed by the broad expansion of same-sex marriage set in motion by the U.S. Supreme Court, religious conservatives are moving their fight to state legislatures seeking exemptions that would allow some groups, companies and people with religious objections to refuse benefits or service for gay spouses." The issue is not, and never has been, if "'religious' people should be forced to perform SSM," the issue is seeking specific exemptions from the law, which is a dangerous proposal, to deny service to those with differing religious beliefs. Churches cannot be compelled to perform marriage that are against their religious beliefs. Of course, no one is really seeking to do what you allege. It is a dangerous proposal on a number of levels, not the least of which being that someone who found your religious views to be repellant could deny you service. Do you think that would be fair? Such exemptions would merely create legal chaos. In order for religious freedom to actually exist, it requires the tolerance of differing views. This means that a business cannot, and should not, be able to require patrons to meet the religious moral standards of the business owner in order to obtain service. Doing so would be the true infringement upon the free exercise of religion, and the business owners would be capable of projecting their religious views onto others. As it is, the anti-discriminatio n laws merely seek to provide an even field for minorities including homosexuals, to be able to obtain the same services as everyone else at places of public accommodation.  (15 hrs ago | post #560)

Gay/Lesbian

Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions

Your posts frequently are untrueThe bottom line is that you cannot indicate any way in which procreation, or the ability to do so is relevant to the topic at hand. The reality is that it is an inept and irrelevant argument, as the state regularly marries infertile heterosexual couples. You can't say that procreation is a requirement of legal marriage, but then hold it as being solely applicable to homosexuals, and purely for the purpose of disqualifying them for the legal protections of marriage. Did you have a grown up argument to offer?  (15 hrs ago | post #558)

Gay/Lesbian

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

The refusal of service to someone because the beliefs of the client do not conform to the beliefs of the business owner amounts to imposing a religious test in order to obtain service. The baker admittedly broke the law (see fact 6), and providing the service would in no way infringe upon ANY of the baker's rights or freedomsIt's a cake, kiddo. It isn't a speech, it isn't an endorsement, it isn't participation in the event, it is a baked goodNo, you don't. You support persecution of anyone who holds views different from their own, and seek for business owners to be able to require you to conform to their religious moral beliefs in order to obtain service. Think about that for a second. Do you think it would be right for an agnostic or atheistic business owner should be able to deny you service because you believe in God? Because that would be completely possible following your line of logic. You think it is justified for the baker to discriminate against gay people, but I doubt you would tolerate such discrimination if you were the target. The reality remains that providing the service is in no way an endorsement, nor does it in any way infringe upon any of the baker's rights or liberties. Simply put, he has no right to project this religious moral beliefs onto others, or to require them to conform to his religious moral views in order to obtain service. Doing so would be a violation of the free exercise of the client, not the baker.  (16 hrs ago | post #4000)

Gay/Lesbian

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

The individual has the right to hold and express their views. Their business does not have the right to force others to comply with the religious beliefs of the owner in order to obtain service. Doing so would be a blatant violation of the free exercise of religion of the customer. Providing the service in no way infringes upon any of the proprietor's rights, and does not constitution participation in, or endorsement of the event. You are advancing a very dangerous line of logic where anyone could deny service for any reason. Do you really think that is prudent?  (16 hrs ago | post #3995)

Gay/Lesbian

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

That's lovely. It is also irrelevant to the topic of same sex marriage, or the topic of the thread. Say nothing of the fact that it is a poorly reasoned argument, because you don't apply the same standard to opposite sex couples who wish to divorce, or single parents who wish to adopt. It is a foolish piece of rhetoric that you errantly apply only to same sex couples. The reality is that you don't care about the kids at all (nor do same sex couples seeking to marry necessarily want anything to do with kids in the first place), but rather you are using them in an attempt to enflame debate with your irrelevant drivelYou are an idiot. You advocate for the state to treat some citizens as lesser with less than equal protection of the law. Brian, you are promoting segregation, not fighting itBrian, any insult that I have leveled at you, you have earnedGo ahead. While you are at it, try to come up with a valid and on topic argument. Right now, you are just trollingYou aren't a libertarian, you are an idiot, who endorses discrimination. Face it kiddo, who someone else decides to marry is none of your business, it has no impact upon your rights. Similarly, providing a service to someone with differing views does not violate your rights. Only an idiot would claim otherwise.  (16 hrs ago | post #3994)

Gay/Lesbian

Houston Subpoenas Pastors' Sermons in Gay Rights Ordinanc...

They do have a right to speak, but they don't have a right to preach politics, unless they wish to become for profit enterprises that are no longer tax exempt. This isn't a difficult issue to grasp. The restrictions on political speech are a result of their tax exempt status. If they wish to remain tax exempt, then they may not use their ministry for political speech or political action. It's a church, not a PAC.  (17 hrs ago | post #64)

Gay/Lesbian

Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage?

Frankie, you seem to be suffering from the delusion that people are making the argument that polygamy should be illegal because you are an idiot, but that is not the case. People are explaining to you that there are some very basic reasons why polygamy will remain illegal, namely that by definition it does not seek equal protection of the law. As for your never having set foot in a university, that is less alarming than your inability to count or to understand what equal means, which tends to imply that you never set foot inside an elementary school.  (Saturday Oct 18 | post #2967)

Gay/Lesbian

Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil Unions

Yes, he's found you, and you are dumb.  (Saturday Oct 18 | post #58324)

Gay/Lesbian

Houston Subpoenas Pastors' Sermons in Gay Rights Ordinanc...

Foxy, get a clue. Just as they can't speak out on behalf of a candidate, neither can they do so on an issue. http://www.irs.gov /uac/Charities,-Ch urches-and-Politic s If they wish to risk their tax exempt status, so be it. There is nothing improper or unconstitutional about the subpoenas. Your arguments, which really are unfounded reaffirmations of your opinion, do nothing to illustrate any improper conduct by the city government.  (Saturday Oct 18 | post #50)

Gay/Lesbian

Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions

You can't find anything more recent than 1993? Well played, KiMare. Show that even the arguments in support of your pathetic opinion are out of date.  (Saturday Oct 18 | post #468)

Gay/Lesbian

Lawsuit: College Student Shunned for Anti-Gay View

Even if they weren't doing that, but were advocating a position on a ballot initiative, or suggesting that parishioners sign a given petition, they are in violation of their tax exempt status.  (Saturday Oct 18 | post #77)

Gay/Lesbian

Next gay marriage fight: religious exemptions

Actually, they merely pointed out that neither gay sex, nor procreation are relevant to the topic at hand. Try again, kiddo. Your attempts to enflame the debate are both pathetic, and childish. They merely underscore the fact that you have no valid argument whatsoever to present, and you are utterly incapable of articulating a single way in which allowing same sex couples equality under the law to marry in any way adversely impacts anyone who would not enter into such a unionIt isn't a matter of dumbing down, KiMare. Legally, marriage is a contract, which exists to secure certain legal rights and protections. That is the simple reality of the matter. Our constitution mandates that states provide all persons within their jurisdiction equal protection of the laws, and they are only allowed to deny such protection when doing so serves a compelling governmental interest. Thus far you have fallen short of providing any such interest served by excluding same sex couples from legal marriage. Instead, you offer infantile and irrelevant argumentsThat is one idiot's opinion. Fortunately, your opinion counts for very little.  (Saturday Oct 18 | post #467)

Gay/Lesbian

Houston Subpoenas Pastors' Sermons in Gay Rights Ordinanc...

Actually, it expressly is, read the IRS website on the issue. "Contribution s to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes." http://www.irs.gov /Charities-&-N on-Profits/Charita ble-Organizations/ The-Restriction-of -Political-Campaig n-Intervention-by- Section-501(c)(3)- Tax-Exempt-Organiz ationsThey cannot do so from the pulpit if they wish to remain tax exempt. If they wish to end their tax exempt status, they are free to do whatever they desire from their for profit "churchesThat is exactly what is being questioned here, which is why the subpoenas are valid. The sermons were basically made in public, and officials could have gleaned the content by simply attending the services. There is no reason, if the pastors are in compliance with the law, not to submit the documents in question. The only reason to object is if they have done something that would jeopardize their tax exempt status. They make themselves look suspicious by fighting the subpoenaNo, they aren't. The concern is valid, and if they have broken the law, and violated their tax exempt status, then they should be accountable for the consequences. You seem to hate the accountability that comes with free speech and free exerciseNo, it isn't. They weren't prevented from preaching, and even issuing subpoenas for the sermons in question in no way infringes upon the free speech or free exercise of religion of anyone. If, however, they have been illegally issuing political statements from the pulpit their tax exempt status can, and should, be revoked. The free exercise of religion is no excuse for breaking the law.  (Saturday Oct 18 | post #48)

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