Ex-Marine undergoing gender reassignment

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: 72te27
...You do not get to determine for others what is or isn't sacred ...

Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner, inadvertently I suspect. You are right, we don't get to tell each other what is or isn't "sacred". Therefore one subset of the population cannot claim marriage as sacred when for legal purposes it is simply a government sanctioned contract of sorts with various legal ramifications that have nothing to do with one's belief system.

jeff
 
Originally Posted By: greenjp
Originally Posted By: 72te27
...You do not get to determine for others what is or isn't sacred ...

Ding Ding Ding! We have a winner, inadvertently I suspect. You are right, we don't get to tell each other what is or isn't "sacred". Therefore one subset of the population cannot claim marriage as sacred when for legal purposes it is simply a government sanctioned contract of sorts with various legal ramifications that have nothing to do with one's belief system.

jeff


Exactly this.
 
Agreed wholeheartedly.

Two people that want to share their lives together should have exactly the same rights and protections as a man and a woman who choose to (with or without making babies).

"sacred" is an opinion.
 
But does the converse apply? Can one group for those who believe differently to participate in their version of sacred? Should anyone be forced to participate in your sacred ceremony, and if you refuse, you are prosecuted, lose your business by force of law, etc?

It seems it's gone beyond "Live and Let Live." It's now you must honor my choices, regardless what you believe.

I'm ok with Live and Let live, as long as that's really how you want to do it. But when you start dragging to court those who don't want to participate in the ceremonies related to how you live, how have we preserved freedom for all?
 
Originally Posted By: javacontour
Should anyone be forced to participate in your sacred ceremony, and if you refuse, you are prosecuted, lose your business by force of law, etc?

Could you elaborate on this? I am not aware of any movement to force people to participate in ceremonies.
 
Bakeries forced to bake cakes.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/ma...ommission-rules


Wedding chapels forced to host ceremonies.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2014/...3zRJ/story.html



Originally Posted By: greenjp
Originally Posted By: javacontour
Should anyone be forced to participate in your sacred ceremony, and if you refuse, you are prosecuted, lose your business by force of law, etc?

Could you elaborate on this? I am not aware of any movement to force people to participate in ceremonies.
 
Interesting, thanks for the links.

Note these have to do with non-religious for-profit businesses whose owners are claiming exemption from anti-discrimination laws based on their personal beliefs. They could just as easily be refusing to take mixed-race couples or people of simply different faiths. This gets to the more broad issue of just who are you allowed to discriminate against if you're running a "public accommodation". Could that bakery refuse to make a cake for a bar mitzvah?

Note the article explicitly mentions that non-profit religious institutions (ie actual churches, not "wedding chapels") are exempt from these sorts of anti-discrimination laws.

jeff
 
Profit or non profit makes no difference. If one claims you can't prevent someone from getting married due to gender why would you force someone to be part of your ceremony? It's ok to violate the rights of business owners but not the rights of those wanting to marry? Either they both have the rights to live according to their deeply held convictions or neither does.
It strikes me as hypocritical. On one hand, don't force your view of marriage on me with your laws, but it's ok to force my view of marriage on you with my laws?
 
Originally Posted By: javacontour
But does the converse apply? Can one group for those who believe differently to participate in their version of sacred? Should anyone be forced to participate in your sacred ceremony, and if you refuse, you are prosecuted, lose your business by force of law, etc?

It seems it's gone beyond "Live and Let Live." It's now you must honor my choices, regardless what you believe.

I'm ok with Live and Let live, as long as that's really how you want to do it. But when you start dragging to court those who don't want to participate in the ceremonies related to how you live, how have we preserved freedom for all?


You sir are 100% correct! Its a one way street with these people.
I couldn't care less what they do as long as they don't mess with kids, animals, or try to shove their so called lifestyle down my throat.
Leave me alone and keep to themselves, i will gladly do the same.

The problem is some of them will try and push people to the breaking point deliberately, then claim your a "hater" when you react.
 
By the logic of those who suggest a public accomdation has to serve everyone as they see fit, when will those same folks lobby against businesses who think they have the right to deny patrons their 2nd amendment rights by telling customers they cant bring their guns into a store or restaurant?

If it is truly bad to express personal beliefs, why stop at beliefs on marriage? Why not deny folks the right to express their deeply held beliefs against carrying fire arms. It doesn't matter if you personally are against carrying a firearm, you must allow all your patrons to carry in your business.

Is that what we want? No one has the right to believe and act on those beliefs.
 
I don't define "them" as everyone in their camp. Only those who are adamant about their lot in life while not worrying about trampling on others.
 
Let's stop being so reactionary. The rule is not to prohibit religious institutions from defining what is sacred for them, but to prevent discrimination. If we allow the baker to discriminate, then can others refuse service based on color? Not anymore and I, for one, do not wish to go back. I have every right to speak about and explain my understanding of marriage, but I do not have the right to withhold other people's rights to do the same. I know a church near me that just made a rule to only marry members out of fear that the pastor would be forced to marry same-sex couples. The Pastor warned me about it. I firmly believe that will never happen. That becomes a violation of his ability to freely practice his religion. Now, if he set up a wedding shop, like that 2nd story, that simply was there for profit and convenience, then I would argue he should serve everyone equally.

ref
 
One last thing. IIRC, that same bakery baked a cake for a dog wedding. If so, then their argument of sacredness of marriage is even more ridiculous.

ref
 
This makes me personally sick but it also fuels peoples hatred of them even more. I guess they just don't get it yet.
The day someone tries to police my thoughts in the name of rehabilitation is the very same day i go to prison for the rest of my life.


Quote:
Martin said it was “truly frightening” that Phillips will be forced to submit
quarterly reports to the government disclosing whether he turned away any wedding cake business.
“There will be some reporting requirements so that Jack can demonstrate that he doesn’t exercise his belief system anymore – that he has divested himself of his beliefs,” she said.
He will also be required to create new policies and procedures for his staff.

“We consider this reporting to be aimed at rehabilitating Jack so that he has the right thoughts” Martin said. “That’s offensive to everything America stands for.”
 
Good. You open a business to the public, you don't to pick and choose who you are going to serve. It's a for profit business, not a charity. You don't get to say we're not going to serve old people, black people, muslims, gay people.

Hearing about how black people were treated as second class citizens in the south is just sickening, and this is the same exact thing.
 
So you want a society where it's ok for a Klansman to force a black lawyer to represent him in court?

You want a society where it's ok for a convicted Nazi war criminal to force a concentration camp survivor business owner to provide them a service because their business is a public, for profit, accommodation?

You want a society where it's ok for a 9/11 widow to have to serve meals to someone who says death to American and good on the 9/11 pilots and their "righteous" work simply because they own a restaurant?

There is a difference between being born black and between choosing to marry. One doesn't get to choose to be born. But anyone who marries is choosing who they marry and who they ask to participate in their event.

Race isn't a choice. Choosing who you will use to cater your wedding is a choice. Those who insist on forcing others to provide services against their deeply held beliefs demonstrate their hypocrisy in the matter. They resisted society telling them who they "should" marry, but then have no problem telling society they "should" be happy to provide their services at their wedding.

It's a double standard.

Originally Posted By: dishdude
Good. You open a business to the public, you don't to pick and choose who you are going to serve. It's a for profit business, not a charity. You don't get to say we're not going to serve old people, black people, muslims, gay people.

Hearing about how black people were treated as second class citizens in the south is just sickening, and this is the same exact thing.
 
Originally Posted By: javacontour
So you want a society where it's ok for a Klansman to force a black lawyer to represent him in court?

You want a society where it's ok for a convicted Nazi war criminal to force a concentration camp survivor business owner to provide them a service because their business is a public, for profit, accommodation?

You want a society where it's ok for a 9/11 widow to have to serve meals to someone who says death to American and good on the 9/11 pilots and their "righteous" work simply because they own a restaurant?

There is a difference between being born black and between choosing to marry. One doesn't get to choose to be born. But anyone who marries is choosing who they marry and who they ask to participate in their event.

Race isn't a choice. Choosing who you will use to cater your wedding is a choice. Those who insist on forcing others to provide services against their deeply held beliefs demonstrate their hypocrisy in the matter. They resisted society telling them who they "should" marry, but then have no problem telling society they "should" be happy to provide their services at their wedding.

It's a double standard.



That's a ridiculous argument, last I checked klansman and convicts weren't in protected classes. Choosing who you marry certainly is a choice, being gay isn't. Times are changing, this train has left the station and isn't going back.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

shortyb
Guess its my turn, lost a dog buddy
2
Replies
27
Views
695
billt460
Jdeere562
Sweet Revenge
2 3
Replies
42
Views
1K
JimPghPA
billt460
My Dog Passed Away Yesterday
2 3 4
Replies
71
Views
3K
billt460
Zee09
I Am A Great Guy 👦
Replies
15
Views
1K
TomYoung
S
US Supreme Court unanimously rules excessive county building fees may be unconstitutional
2
Replies
23
Views
1K
wpod
Back
Top