Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
I said this well over two hours prior to your post.
And 12 isn't that many, especially as we'll probably see it die in the House (where they were more oppositional than Senate Reps over the 2020 election).
-
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!
Senate passes landmark protections for same-sex marriage
- Thread starter We Never Know
- Start date
Truthseeker
Non-debating member when I can help myself
The dems still have a majority in the House. The results of the election dont take take effect until January 3rd. It would strain belief for me if it didn't pass the House. Also denying the election is a bigger of an issue for Republicans than that of same-sex marriage.
Last edited:
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The Democrats are likely to see this as a reasonable compromise. If they do not act now, and the Republicans get gay marriage overturned, it may be unlikely that they could pass a bill for quite some time. Meanwhile Republican anti gay and trans laws could become entrenched in red states.
The compromise will greatly weaken Republican abilities to make such laws if marriage equality gets overturned.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Wishful thinking?
To me that's about as persuasive as saying Bob doesn't want to bring his building up to code. Sometimes you have to play ball if you want to run a business licensed under the state and BBB guidelines. And that includes protections against discriminatory employment and service habits. Without which I guarantee some towns would still be sundown towns for various minority groups. Bob and his mates who own all the retail in a town shouldn't be able to say 'no disabled customers' just because they're eugenecist idiots.
My first job was actually in a small news-agency after school. Privately owned as far as I could tell.
Pretty sure my boss hated like half the people we served lol
It wasn’t located in the most affluent of neighbourhoods and there was a bottle-o round the corner.
More than once we had to kick out an unruly drunk. Moreso for safety purposes, as most were fairly benign. Just trying to buy some “lotto” or I dunno get some scratchies or whatever
But a lot of the employees were minors, so better safe than sorry.
One day, curiosity got the best of me. See he would always complain about most of our customers being “idiots” and “behaving like beasts.” His words not mine.
I asked why bother serving them if you hate them so much.
He legit just laughed, pat me on the shoulder and said
“Ahh child. Our clients might be scum, but their money is functional and that’s all that matters because that’s just how capitalism works.”
Course I was like 15 or so, so I didn’t really “get” the joke at the time lol
I guess what I mean ultimately is, I see the now infamous baker as a massive baby who just threw a temper tantrum. Not to mention completely unprofessional and likely a hypocrite to boot.
He’s a baker not a priest for crying out loud. Who cares what the cake is used for, it’s none of his business
Like if his qualm was, as he claimed at the time, that he was somehow being forced to be involved with the acceptance of a gay wedding for making a cake for the ceremony, then I wonder if he asked all his clients what their cakes were used for? Like every time. I mean for all he knew, someone could have been buying a cake for their mistress. Would he be involved in cheating if that were the case?
A business is there to provide goods and services. If you don’t like your customers, well tough luck. That’s life
You think retail workers or even owners like their clients? Lol I have worked in retail for over a decade. They hate the lot of us, trust me lol
Last edited:
All of us have self-serving reasons....especially you.
It's possible that the bill is best they could craft that
would survive constitutional challenges.
Remember....for a couple decades, we've a SCOTUS
just itching to turn Ameristan into a Christian caliphate.
Why "especially," rather than just "including?"
Just bust'n yer chops.
But ya know, impugning the motives of the other
side when they do the right thing would just as
easily apply to yours, eg, Obama & Clintons
later abandoning opposition to gay marriage.
Last edited:
I have critized "the other side" (liberals) many times, when they've deserved it. Here in Ontario, I have voted Conservative in the last 2 provincial elections, and we've had 2 consecutive Conservative majorities.
As to people changing their opinions, and coming around to accept what they previously rejected -- well, that was the whole point of all those years of fighting for our rights as LGBTQ+. It's what we were trying to do.
What I hope (and it is of course always only hope, because I honestly do not know what ultimately motivates anyone) is that they changed their opinions because eventually they were provided sufficient information to understand that, a) different sexual orientations and expressions are natural (if not common), and b) marriage is actually good for people, and including gay people is good not only for them but for everyone. That was the crux of the battle that I fought.
To be honest, I have still never understood the bizaare hatred spewed at Hillary Clinton. It seems way out of proportion to me.
Duh!
She's on the other side.
Sometimes, you take what you can get. There's no great advantage to get nothing, as opposed to everything, when getting quite a lot is a viable option.
As to "religious protections," it saddens me that they are necessary, but it is what it is. It's a pity that the bakers don't realize that they are not marrying a person of their own sex -- they're baking a cake! And (so far as I know) that would only be a sin if baked on the Sabbath, or baked with pork or shrimp.
Same thing for hall owners who won't rent their facilities -- once again, they are not getting married. Christians have been getting around religious strictures (like the 613 mitvot in the OT) for two millenia, and the only reason many can't get around the same-sex marriage one is that they don't want to.
Sand Dancer
Crazy Cat Lady
Politics is about compromise, religion is not. That is why they shouldn't merge.
Science is about evidence and verification, religion is not. That is why they CANNOT merge.
Truthseeker
Non-debating member when I can help myself
It's January 3rd. I inadvertantly added a 2.