Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Fighting Back!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by square_peg View Post
    It's not directly from the constitution, but you've heard of the Civil Rights Act, correct? Title II, Sec. 201a says "All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation." Meanwhile, Title II, Sec. 201e says "The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection."
    http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?...age=transcript

    So there you go. Legislation that explicitly distinguishes between private and public. The CRA itself doesn't explicitly mention sexual orientation, but the state level does protect that characteristic.
    Correct, and that is not a Constitutional principle. You said it was Constitutional. And it violates the Constitutional principle of freedom of Association which the Founders did not limit to "private" concerns.


    You're not.
    Of course you are. These Christians lived in/on the farm and were fined for not offering for a homosexual wedding. A violation of their beliefs, to be involved in such a sinful event.
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by square_peg View Post
      I doubt it. Religious organizations are supposed to be exempt.


      Actually, I believe both.


      And it is yet another thing to seemingly identify a person entirely by her (possible) sin.
      I guess I view discrimination without divorcing it from the person's intent. I have a hard time calling the Giffords' actions discriminatory because of their intent.

      As I understand it, the Giffords did not refuse the host the wedding because the people involved were homosexual, they refused to host the wedding because it was a homosexual union. Do you see the difference, here? They did not decline to host the event because of the people, but because they could not in good conscience participate in the event itself (reference the enabling of sin that I described earlier). Liberals want to lambaste Christians for 'hate crimes' like this, when there's no hate involved.

      The Giffords made a very careful distinction here. According to the article in the OP, Cynthia Gifford even left open the invitation to use their property for the reception after declining to host the ceremony. This is what so many people seem to fail to understand, or refuse to see in these situations. Christians (real Christians) have no desire to harm or persecute homosexuals, but they may legitimately believe that their religion forbids them from supporting or encouraging homosexual activity.

      I also think that there's a general lack of respect here. The Giffords were willing to accommodate this couple to the extent that their religious beliefs allowed them to. Apparently they even respected the couple's personal beliefs and right to celebrate their union (by allowing them to host the reception on the property). But Melisa McCarthy had so little respect for the Giffords beliefs, that she felt compelled to set up an 'ambush' phone call, insist on placing the Giffords in such an awkard situation, and then punish them for practicing their religion.Seems like respect for diversity of thought is only an admirable trait if the other person happens to agree with you. And the sad part is, the government is perpetuating this madness.
      Last edited by myth; 10-04-2014, 11:55 AM.
      "If you believe, take the first step, it leads to Jesus Christ. If you don't believe, take the first step all the same, for you are bidden to take it. No one wants to know about your faith or unbelief, your orders are to perform the act of obedience on the spot. Then you will find yourself in the situation where faith becomes possible and where faith exists in the true sense of the word." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by myth View Post
        I guess I view discrimination without divorcing it from the person's intent. I have a hard time calling the Giffords' actions discriminatory because of their intent.

        As I understand it, the Giffords did not refuse the host the wedding because the people involved were homosexual, they refused to host the wedding because it was a homosexual union. Do you see the difference, here? They did not decline to host the event because of the people, but because they could not in good conscience participate in the event itself (reference the enabling of sin that I described earlier). Liberals want to lambaste Christians for 'hate crimes' like this, when there's no hate involved.

        The Giffords made a very careful distinction here. According to the article in the OP, Cynthia Gifford even left open the invitation to use their property for the reception after declining to host the ceremony. This is what so many people seem to fail to understand, or refuse to see in these situations. Christians (real Christians) have no desire to harm or persecute homosexuals, but they may legitimately believe that their religion forbids them from supporting or encouraging homosexual activity.

        I also think that there's a general lack of respect here. The Giffords were willing to accommodate this couple to the extent that their religious beliefs allowed them to. Apparently they even respected the couple's personal beliefs and right to celebrate their union (by allowing them to host the reception on the property). But Melisa McCarthy had so little respect for the Giffords beliefs, that she felt compelled to set up an 'ambush' phone call, insist on placing the Giffords in such an awkard situation, and then punish them for practicing their religion.Seems like respect for diversity of thought is only an admirable trait if the other person happens to agree with you. And the sad part is, the government is perpetuating this madness.
        Actually, I understand all this. I realize that with the exception of extremists like the Phelps clan, most Christians who oppose same-sex marriage don't do so while consciously thinking "Ew, gay people! What a vile abomination against God! I'm going to do everything in my power to ensure that they can't ever experience equality or happiness! What disgusting sub-human creatures!" That's why I defended the Chick-Fil-A president from certain gay rights advocates who were blasting him as hateful and bigoted on the level of the Westboro group. Most people don't have ill intentions, and may genuinely believe that they're doing the righteous, honorable and even loving thing.

        That said, however, the end result is that people who happen to be gay are being legally and culturally discriminated against. Yes, the motives aren't inherently hateful, but do you really think that matters to the people on the receiving end of discrimination? If you're starving, and one person who has food to spare refuses to give you any because he thinks you're scum and wants you to suffer, whereas another person who has food to spare doesn't give you any because he believes in some religion that forbids him to feed the hungry and he simply wants to obey his conscience, do the motives really make a difference, considering the end result (that you're still starving)?

        Additionally, while most opponents of same-sex marriage don't actively hate gay people, I'm not sure I can say that most of them actively love gay people either. But that's a separate discussion topic.
        Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

        I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by square_peg View Post
          Actually, I understand all this. I realize that with the exception of extremists like the Phelps clan, most Christians who oppose same-sex marriage don't do so while consciously thinking "Ew, gay people! What a vile abomination against God! I'm going to do everything in my power to ensure that they can't ever experience equality or happiness! What disgusting sub-human creatures!" That's why I defended the Chick-Fil-A president from certain gay rights advocates who were blasting him as hateful and bigoted on the level of the Westboro group. Most people don't have ill intentions, and may genuinely believe that they're doing the righteous, honorable and even loving thing.

          That said, however, the end result is that people who happen to be gay are being legally and culturally discriminated against. Yes, the motives aren't inherently hateful, but do you really think that matters to the people on the receiving end of discrimination? If you're starving, and one person who has food to spare refuses to give you any because he thinks you're scum and wants you to suffer, whereas another person who has food to spare doesn't give you any because he believes in some religion that forbids him to feed the hungry and he simply wants to obey his conscience, do the motives really make a difference, considering the end result (that you're still starving)?

          Additionally, while most opponents of same-sex marriage don't actively hate gay people, I'm not sure I can say that most of them actively love gay people either. But that's a separate discussion topic.
          Fair enough. I understand that same-sex couples feel discriminated against. I just wish that, as so many of them fight for equal treatment, they didn't have to slowly convince the world (in general) to discriminate against Christians. Maybe I'm paranoid, but I see a trend in the way Christians are being treated. It's (almost) comically ironic, the way some people carry on about 'tolerance' and 'diversity', but are then unwilling respect the opinions of others.

          I was raised in Southern Baptist churches, and I know how some Christians are. They don't always embody this level of understanding that I wish for from the liberal camp. But I still can't like watching the government clamp down on freedom of religion. It’s worse in other countries, but its trending that direction here, too.
          "If you believe, take the first step, it leads to Jesus Christ. If you don't believe, take the first step all the same, for you are bidden to take it. No one wants to know about your faith or unbelief, your orders are to perform the act of obedience on the spot. Then you will find yourself in the situation where faith becomes possible and where faith exists in the true sense of the word." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by myth View Post
            Fair enough. I understand that same-sex couples feel discriminated against. I just wish that, as so many of them fight for equal treatment, they didn't have to slowly convince the world (in general) to discriminate against Christians. Maybe I'm paranoid, but I see a trend in the way Christians are being treated. It's (almost) comically ironic, the way some people carry on about 'tolerance' and 'diversity', but are then unwilling respect the opinions of others.

            I was raised in Southern Baptist churches, and I know how some Christians are. They don't always embody this level of understanding that I wish for from the liberal camp. But I still can't like watching the government clamp down on freedom of religion. It’s worse in other countries, but its trending that direction here, too.
            Yes, I think you’re paranoid.

            The demand for equal civil rights for all citizens doesn't discriminate against Christians, they have the same equal rights as everyone else. It's just that Christians are not entitled to special treatment, which is what you seem to be demanding. The only 'right' being denied the Giffords is the 'right' to discriminate against homosexuals, just as they don’t have the 'right' to discriminate against blacks or miscegenetic marriage or anything else based solely upon their own personal views or prejudices.
            Last edited by Tassman; 10-05-2014, 05:43 AM.
            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Tassman View Post
              Yes, I think you’re paranoid.

              The demand for equal civil rights for all citizens doesn't discriminate against Christians, they have the same equal rights as everyone else. It's just that Christians are not entitled to special treatment, which is what you seem to be demanding. The only 'right' being denied the Giffords is the 'right' to discriminate against homosexuals, just as they don’t have the 'right' to discriminate against blacks or miscegenetic marriage or anything else based solely upon their own personal views or prejudices.
              Let's see how strongly you back that. My Church believes and teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman. Does my Church, in your opinion, have the right to decline performing marriages for other than "a man and a woman"?
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                Yes, I think you’re paranoid.

                The demand for equal civil rights for all citizens doesn't discriminate against Christians, they have the same equal rights as everyone else. It's just that Christians are not entitled to special treatment, which is what you seem to be demanding. The only 'right' being denied the Giffords is the 'right' to discriminate against homosexuals, just as they don’t have the 'right' to discriminate against blacks or miscegenetic marriage or anything else based solely upon their own personal views or prejudices.
                Crazy stuff is already happening. So, it’s legal to stand in the street and make one statement. But to any man who stands on the same street and expresses his opinion that the opposite is true….well, don’t be surprised if you’re arrested. Freedom of speech and religion are alive and well in the UK, I see.


                http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/reli...-is-a-sin.html

                http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes...ity-a-sin.html
                "If you believe, take the first step, it leads to Jesus Christ. If you don't believe, take the first step all the same, for you are bidden to take it. No one wants to know about your faith or unbelief, your orders are to perform the act of obedience on the spot. Then you will find yourself in the situation where faith becomes possible and where faith exists in the true sense of the word." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  Let's see how strongly you back that. My Church believes and teaches that marriage is between a man and a woman. Does my Church, in your opinion, have the right to decline performing marriages for other than "a man and a woman"?
                  The Civil Rights Act, to which I was referring does not encompass churches and places of worship so the answer to your question is 'yes'.

                  The Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation. Generally, places of “public accommodation” are businesses or buildings that are open or offer services to the general public such as “inns, hotels, motels, or other organizations that provide accommodation to temporary visitors restaurants, cafeterias, lunchroom's, lunch counters, soda fountains, or other facilities providing food for consumption motion picture houses, theaters, concert halls, sports arenas, stadiums or other places of exhibition or entertainment”.

                  http://civilrights.uslegal.com/discr...accommodation/
                  Last edited by Tassman; 10-06-2014, 05:16 AM.
                  “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by myth View Post
                    Crazy stuff is already happening. So, it’s legal to stand in the street and make one statement. But to any man who stands on the same street and expresses his opinion that the opposite is true….well, don’t be surprised if you’re arrested. Freedom of speech and religion are alive and well in the UK, I see.


                    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/reli...-is-a-sin.html

                    http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes...ity-a-sin.html
                    It’s reasonable, I think, for oppressed minorities to stand on the street demanding equal rights. Such was the case with the Suffragette Movement, the Martin Luther King Civil Rights Marches and Gay Rights demonstrations etc.

                    It is not the case with those seeking to use public spaces as a pulpit to discriminate personal beliefs, which promote discrimination against the very segments of the population already unjustly discriminated against.
                    Last edited by Tassman; 10-06-2014, 05:19 AM.
                    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                      The Civil Rights Act, to which I was referring does not encompass churches and places of worship so the answer to your question is 'yes'.

                      The Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation. Generally, places of “public accommodation” are businesses or buildings that are open or offer services to the general public such as “inns, hotels, motels, or other organizations that provide accommodation to temporary visitors restaurants, cafeterias, lunchroom's, lunch counters, soda fountains, or other facilities providing food for consumption motion picture houses, theaters, concert halls, sports arenas, stadiums or other places of exhibition or entertainment”.

                      http://civilrights.uslegal.com/discr...accommodation/
                      From the link you provided:
                      Generally, places of public accommodation are businesses or buildings that are open or offer services to the general public. These facilities can be publicly or privately owned and operated.

                      Do you REALLY think Obama, Holder, or their ilk would say that a Church could NOT fall within those guidelines?
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                        It’s reasonable, I think, for oppressed minorities to stand on the street demanding equal rights. Such was the case with the Suffragette Movement, the Martin Luther King Civil Rights Marches and Gay Rights demonstrations etc.

                        It is not the case with those seeking to use public spaces as a pulpit to discriminate personal beliefs, which promote discrimination against the very segments of the population already unjustly discriminated against.

                        Let me guess.... You'd also be against anti-abortion protests (the peaceful, non-disruptive ones) too?

                        How 'odd' that all the opinions you think should not be allowed to be expressed in public places are the ones that don't coincide with your political views and pet 'social justice' hobbyhorses.

                        Also - you do realise that leading figures in the suffrage movement were motivated by their Christian principles; and MLK was 'ahem' - a Christian? Yeah, let's keep those bigoted Christians quiet in public...
                        ...>>> Witty remark or snarky quote of another poster goes here <<<...

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                          It’s reasonable, I think, for oppressed minorities to stand on the street demanding equal rights. Such was the case with the Suffragette Movement, the Martin Luther King Civil Rights Marches and Gay Rights demonstrations etc.

                          It is not the case with those seeking to use public spaces as a pulpit to discriminate personal beliefs, which promote discrimination against the very segments of the population already unjustly discriminated against.
                          I think it's very telling that you do not believe in freedom of speech. Thanks for being up-front about it.
                          "If you believe, take the first step, it leads to Jesus Christ. If you don't believe, take the first step all the same, for you are bidden to take it. No one wants to know about your faith or unbelief, your orders are to perform the act of obedience on the spot. Then you will find yourself in the situation where faith becomes possible and where faith exists in the true sense of the word." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            Like the "affirmative action" laws, they simply discriminate against somebody else.
                            Anti-discrimation laws discriminate against bigots! How ironic.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by phank View Post
                              Anti-discrimation laws discriminate against bigots! How ironic.
                              Interesting you should come to the "bigot" angle, when all I was referring to was being passed over for promotion because I wasn't a minority.
                              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by myth View Post
                                I guess I view discrimination without divorcing it from the person's intent. I have a hard time calling the Giffords' actions discriminatory because of their intent.

                                As I understand it, the Giffords did not refuse the host the wedding because the people involved were homosexual, they refused to host the wedding because it was a homosexual union. Do you see the difference, here? They did not decline to host the event because of the people, but because they could not in good conscience participate in the event itself (reference the enabling of sin that I described earlier). Liberals want to lambaste Christians for 'hate crimes' like this, when there's no hate involved.

                                The Giffords made a very careful distinction here. According to the article in the OP, Cynthia Gifford even left open the invitation to use their property for the reception after declining to host the ceremony. This is what so many people seem to fail to understand, or refuse to see in these situations. Christians (real Christians) have no desire to harm or persecute homosexuals, but they may legitimately believe that their religion forbids them from supporting or encouraging homosexual activity.

                                I also think that there's a general lack of respect here. The Giffords were willing to accommodate this couple to the extent that their religious beliefs allowed them to. Apparently they even respected the couple's personal beliefs and right to celebrate their union (by allowing them to host the reception on the property). But Melisa McCarthy had so little respect for the Giffords beliefs, that she felt compelled to set up an 'ambush' phone call, insist on placing the Giffords in such an awkard situation, and then punish them for practicing their religion.Seems like respect for diversity of thought is only an admirable trait if the other person happens to agree with you. And the sad part is, the government is perpetuating this madness.
                                Why, by golly, the Giffords offered "separate but equal" accommodations, and that should have been plenty good enough. No, this couple was not accorded the same treatment as others, as required by law, but the Giffords' faith obliges them to be bigots, and therefore we are all required to favor them and not their victims. We are expected to RESPECT bigotry, because they wave bibles around and claim Jesus WANTS them to be bigots. It must say that somewhere in the bible...doesn't it?

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, Today, 09:17 AM
                                11 responses
                                47 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Gondwanaland, Yesterday, 04:51 PM
                                6 responses
                                41 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Gondwanaland  
                                Started by Gondwanaland, Yesterday, 12:16 PM
                                24 responses
                                110 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 10:11 AM
                                0 responses
                                29 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Reepicheep, 10-23-2021, 12:53 PM
                                55 responses
                                290 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Working...
                                X