• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A way forwarded (Obergefell)

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I remember it differently.
Did you live here then?
Anyway, that reason doesn't change
the reality that it was discriminatory.
I don't but I was a gay marriage advocate for years which tracked gay marriage and domestic partnership cases around the country. Still do, and also with the current proliferation of transgender cases as well.

It was discriminatory. Towards gays. The whole point was to limit access to gay couples because they couldn't receive marriage benefits. Once that was lifted there was no longer an issue. It wasn't about 'liberal discriminators' since all the bans were republican attempts to restrict gay spouse benefits access. Poorly.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I don't but I was a gay marriage advocate for years which tracked gay marriage and domestic partnership cases around the country. Still do, and also with the current proliferation of transgender cases as well.

It was discriminatory. Towards gays. The whole point was to limit access to gay couples because they couldn't receive marriage benefits. Once that was lifted there was no longer an issue. It wasn't about 'liberal discriminators' since all the bans were republican attempts to restrict gay spouse benefits access. Poorly.
The City didn't discriminate against gays who wanted
to marry. It wasn't in their purview to allow marriage.
However creating separate benefits for gays that were
denied to straights was discriminatory.
They had their reasons, ie, helping those who perhaps
wanted to marry, but couldn't. And denying benefits
to those who for whatever reason also wouldn't marry.
But it is what it is....discrimination based upon sexual
preference.
I never did that in my business. It's wrong.
It's great that SCOTUS made that issue moot.
Here's hoping they don't muck things up again.
 

Truth in love

Well-Known Member
It's not up to churches to decide what the "proper way" to define what civil marriage is. Doctrine should not be used to prop up secular law. And that's what was happening with DOMA. Striking down of DOMA prevented churches from using religious doctrine from limiting civil marriage access to gays.

If you don't want to be involved with gay weddings because it's against your religious beliefs, that's on you, not the government. We don't allow religious based discrimination in business practice. You can no more deny gays service for being gay than I can deny Christians service for being Christian. Allowing localized discrimination sets up zones where people are trapped with no access to services, much how Jews in ww2 were unable to get services in Germany right up until 'discrimination tolerance' advanced to 'arrests and executions.'

Allowing gays to force Christians (or any other combination) to violate their beliefs is unconstitutional.

The whole point of this tread was about a path forward for everyone.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Allowing gays to force Christians (or any other combination) to violate their beliefs is unconstitutional.

The whole point of this tread was about a path forward for everyone.
Stopping Christians from discriminating against other people isn't unconstitutional. You don't have a right to discriminate based on your beliefs. The way forward is not to let you if your religion says it's okay.
 

Truth in love

Well-Known Member
It's a simply question. How are you using the term discrimination?

So the core meaning is to decide or make a distinction.

As a rule the gospel of Christ rejects discrimination on the bases of race, gender etc. (2 Nephi 26:
32 And again, the Lord God hath commanded that men should not murder; that they should not lie; that they should not steal; that they should not take the name of the Lord their God in vain; that they should not envy; that they should not have malice; that they should not contend one with another; that they should not commit whoredoms; and that they should do none of these things; for whoso doeth them shall perish.

33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

However in the matter of sin or not sin. It is clear that some choices are right and others wrong. (One could label this discrimination, but I think it is not accurate).

For many years people have been trying to misdiagnosis a rejection of sin as discrimination. To pretend that a person says "I cannot support your behavior of ..." as a person being a bigot. This is a terrible error.


If I ran a motel I would not rent it out to persons I believed where taking part in child sex abuse. I could be labeled a bigot, intolerenet etc. but it is the immoral behavior I'm opposed to not the person. That is a vital difference.
 

Truth in love

Well-Known Member
Why should we cater to bigots? Why should we shed a tear for them? We told them to bugger off when it came to interracial marriage and racial integration. They can, and will, bugger off again.
Wow so anyone who disagree with you does not deserve human rights?

How is this not bigotry?
 

Truth in love

Well-Known Member
When one is in a business of public accommodation,
one must obey all current & future laws, eg, Fair Housing,
anti-discrimination. We accept this when we open.
If one's religion requires limiting one's customer base,
that's a risk one should consider first.

Wow I thought you were a libertarian?

This make every action of running the business subject to micro management by the feds. I would never support that.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
So the core meaning is to decide or make a distinction.

As a rule the gospel of Christ rejects discrimination on the bases of race, gender etc. (2 Nephi 26:
32 And again, the Lord God hath commanded that men should not murder; that they should not lie; that they should not steal; that they should not take the name of the Lord their God in vain; that they should not envy; that they should not have malice; that they should not contend one with another; that they should not commit whoredoms; and that they should do none of these things; for whoso doeth them shall perish.

33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

However in the matter of sin or not sin. It is clear that some choices are right and others wrong. (One could label this discrimination, but I think it is not accurate).

For many years people have been trying to misdiagnosis a rejection of sin as discrimination. To pretend that a person says "I cannot support your behavior of ..." as a person being a bigot. This is a terrible error.


If I ran a motel I would not rent it out to persons I believed where taking part in child sex abuse. I could be labeled a bigot, intolerenet etc. but it is the immoral behavior I'm opposed to not the person. That is a vital difference.
That you have to compare same sex partnerships, a consensual agreement between adults not negatively impacting you or anyone, to child abuse, a nonconsentual agreement where clear harm is being done, to make your case how rejecting both is okay shows me it is, in fact, bigotry.
 

Truth in love

Well-Known Member
Deciding that a law forbidding same sex marriage is unconstitutional is not writing a new law. It's ruling on the constitutionality of a law, which is exactly their job.
It is their job to interpret the law.

Can you site the section in the Constitution that allows the federal government create a new definition of what a thing is? I can't seem to find it.
 

ADigitalArtist

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Wow so anyone who disagree with you does not deserve human rights?

How is this not bigotry?
Do...do you think forbidding interracial marriage bans is a violation of human rights? Because if you do, then I don't think there's much hope for you.
 

Truth in love

Well-Known Member
Marriage used to be one man and as many women as he could afford. How is gay marriage worse than that?

Your side stepping the issue.

I'm well aware of the history of feds using marriage law to abuse people of their religious liberties.

The point however is that what marriage has been in every society I've been able to find has been mad and women (sometimes plural though vary rarely more than one husband).

So where is the federal power to change what a thing is by whim of the unelected?
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Wow so anyone who disagree with you does not deserve human rights?

How is this not bigotry?
They still get their rights. They can still believe whatever. They just can't force it on others and they must still share society because it belongs to all of us.
Your rights end where your neighbors nose begins.
For many years people have been trying to misdiagnosis a rejection of sin as discrimination. To pretend that a person says "I cannot support your behavior of ..." as a person being a bigot. This is a terrible error.
Sin doesn't exist outside of your religion. It's bullying and harassment to keep going on about to people.
If I ran a motel I would not rent it out to persons I believed where taking part in child sex abuse. I could be labeled a bigot, intolerenet etc. but it is the immoral behavior I'm opposed to not the person. That is a vital difference.
I doubt anyone but NAMBLA would label you a bigot.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Wow I thought you were a libertarian?
I'm also a pragmatist.
Libertarians don't run the country.
(We're lucky they don't run us out of it.)
But as one in business, I anticipate all the micro-regulation that
government might impose. Best to go with the flow, & survive.
Concurrently, I advocate for less regulation
This make every action of running the business subject to micro management by the feds. I would never support that.
I sympathize.
 

Sand Dancer

Crazy Cat Lady
Your side stepping the issue.

I'm well aware of the history of feds using marriage law to abuse people of their religious liberties.

The point however is that what marriage has been in every society I've been able to find has been mad and women (sometimes plural though vary rarely more than one husband).

So where is the federal power to change what a thing is by whim of the unelected?

It has much to do with procreation, but since sex is not just for procreation in our species, it shouldn't be the main criteria.
 

Truth in love

Well-Known Member
Stopping Christians from discriminating against other people isn't unconstitutional. You don't have a right to discriminate based on your beliefs. The way forward is not to let you if your religion says it's okay.
Then where do you get the right to discriminate against the Christians? Are they uniquely unfit to be a part of society. Should we have them all move to certain parts of town? Maybe have them all wear bight yellow crosses next?

It is utterly unconstitutional to pass a law that interferes with a person living by their religious beliefs. If the anti discrimination laws can't figure that out they need to go, not the first amendment. And YES in case you are wondering this is a hill I would literally die on.
 

Truth in love

Well-Known Member
That you have to compare same sex partnerships, a consensual agreement between adults not negatively impacting you or anyone, to child abuse, a nonconsentual agreement where clear harm is being done, to make your case how rejecting both is okay shows me it is, in fact, bigotry.

Well hey if you want to act that way its up to you. I'll stick with standing up for the rights of all, not just a few and great expense to others.
 

Truth in love

Well-Known Member
Do...do you think forbidding interracial marriage bans is a violation of human rights? Because if you do, then I don't think there's much hope for you.

That is a very different topic. I don't support bans on interracial marriage.

You don't seem think there is much hope for be as you keep hinting and not so subtitling calling me a bigot for not agreeing with the destruction of the first amendment.
 

Truth in love

Well-Known Member
They still get their rights. They can still believe whatever. They just can't force it on others and they must still share society because it belongs to all of us.
Your rights end where your neighbors nose begins.

Sin doesn't exist outside of your religion. It's bullying and harassment to keep going on about to people.

I doubt anyone but NAMBLA would label you a bigot.

Well thanks for noticing I'm not a Bigot its been missed by many here.

As for religious rights. Their right to live and function is harmed when someone uses the government to try to force them to violate their beliefs or face punishment. Its funny that for decades any law that even moderately limited abortions was killed by a very broad view that abortions rights trumped pretty much any restriction or safety limits (like parental consent, Dr's having hospital admitting privileges etc.) All this for a "right" that was invented by the courts. The right to freedom of religion enshrined as the first amendment in the Bill of rights however get far less consideration in the minds of many. Why would it be a second class right?

As far as nose the right to freedom of religion comes long before imagined rights to micro manage a persons life. So may I suggest you stop hitting people on the nose and then insisting that they did wrong.

Actually sin is sin. Not everyone understands it, but its a thing and accepted far more widely than my religious beliefs.
 
Top