1. 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)

Discussion in 'North American Politics' started by Truth in love, Jun 26, 2022.

  1. pearl

    pearl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    8,793
    Ratings:
    +5,066
    Religion:
    Catholic
    But didn't the Court extend that right, or is this just another case of rescinding another right once given?
     
  2. ADigitalArtist

    ADigitalArtist Veteran Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2015
    Messages:
    10,383
    Ratings:
    +16,872
    Religion:
    Irreligious Agnostic Atheistic Apatheist
    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.
     
  3. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Abnormal before it was fashionable
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    219,262
    Ratings:
    +85,024
    Religion:
    Atheist
    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.
     
  4. Truth in love

    Truth in love Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2022
    Messages:
    2,467
    Ratings:
    +550
    Religion:
    Restored Church of Jesus Christ
    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.
     
  5. ADigitalArtist

    ADigitalArtist Veteran Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2015
    Messages:
    10,383
    Ratings:
    +16,872
    Religion:
    Irreligious Agnostic Atheistic Apatheist
    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.
     
  6. Truth in love

    Truth in love Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2022
    Messages:
    2,467
    Ratings:
    +550
    Religion:
    Restored Church of Jesus Christ
    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.
     
  7. Truth in love

    Truth in love Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2022
    Messages:
    2,467
    Ratings:
    +550
    Religion:
    Restored Church of Jesus Christ
    Wow so anyone who disagree with you does not deserve human rights?

    How is this not bigotry?
     
  8. Truth in love

    Truth in love Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2022
    Messages:
    2,467
    Ratings:
    +550
    Religion:
    Restored Church of Jesus Christ
    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.
     
  9. ADigitalArtist

    ADigitalArtist Veteran Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2015
    Messages:
    10,383
    Ratings:
    +16,872
    Religion:
    Irreligious Agnostic Atheistic Apatheist
    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.
     
  10. Truth in love

    Truth in love Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2022
    Messages:
    2,467
    Ratings:
    +550
    Religion:
    Restored Church of Jesus Christ
    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.
     
  11. ADigitalArtist

    ADigitalArtist Veteran Member
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2015
    Messages:
    10,383
    Ratings:
    +16,872
    Religion:
    Irreligious Agnostic Atheistic Apatheist
    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.
     
  12. Truth in love

    Truth in love Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2022
    Messages:
    2,467
    Ratings:
    +550
    Religion:
    Restored Church of Jesus Christ
    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?
     
  13. Shadow Wolf

    Shadow Wolf Certified People sTabber

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    87,502
    Ratings:
    +40,419
    Religion:
    God is in the Rain
    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.
     
  14. Shadow Wolf

    Shadow Wolf Certified People sTabber

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    87,502
    Ratings:
    +40,419
    Religion:
    God is in the Rain
    You haven't looked hard enough.
     
  15. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Abnormal before it was fashionable
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    219,262
    Ratings:
    +85,024
    Religion:
    Atheist
    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
    I sympathize.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Sand Dancer

    Sand Dancer Crazy Cat Lady

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2013
    Messages:
    6,868
    Ratings:
    +4,530
    Religion:
    Agnostic Buddhist
    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.
     
  17. Truth in love

    Truth in love Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2022
    Messages:
    2,467
    Ratings:
    +550
    Religion:
    Restored Church of Jesus Christ
    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.
     
  18. Truth in love

    Truth in love Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2022
    Messages:
    2,467
    Ratings:
    +550
    Religion:
    Restored Church of Jesus Christ
    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.
     
  19. Truth in love

    Truth in love Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2022
    Messages:
    2,467
    Ratings:
    +550
    Religion:
    Restored Church of Jesus Christ
    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.
     
  20. Truth in love

    Truth in love Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2022
    Messages:
    2,467
    Ratings:
    +550
    Religion:
    Restored Church of Jesus Christ
    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.
     
Loading...