Link to one of many articles.Â
Loading Image
This is a good day. For another treat, Google "gay marriage" and see what happens.
Gay Marriage legalized in the United States
freedom. FOr everyone . Now lets have equality pay while we are all at it 
Now if only Tone Abet stopped being an asshole about this...
nostylin wrote:freedom. FOr everyone . Now lets have equality pay while we are all at it
Equality pay?
Also yay. Now I can do gay things.
To be honest, I don't really mind gay people, but far too many times have their rights overlapped with religious rights:
A Christian couple that owns a family farm in New York is pushing back after the state fined them $13,000 for refusing to host a same-sex wedding on their property.
According to The Daily Signal, Cynthia and Robert Gifford — the owners of Liberty Ridge Farm in Albany — filed an appeal Thursday with the appellate division of the New York Supreme Court. The Giffords claim the court did not keep in mind their rights under the Constitution and their religious beliefs in making its decision to fine them.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/christian-family-farm-gay/2015/06/25/id/652303/
The owners of an Oregon bakery learned Friday that there is a severe price to pay for following their Christian faith.
A judge for the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) recommended a lesbian couple should receive $135,000 in damages for their emotional suffering after Sweet Cakes by Melissa refused to make them a wedding cake.
As a result – Aaron and Melissa Klein could lose everything they own — including their home.
Two Christian ministers who own an Idaho wedding chapel were told they had to either perform same-sex weddings or face jail time and up to a $1,000 fine, according to a lawsuit filed Friday in federal court.
A family-owned Indiana pizza shop that was forced to close its doors after the owners said they would not cater a gay wedding because of their religious beliefs, is now raking in thousands of dollars from supporters.
The owners of Memories Pizza in Walkteron, Ind., became one of the first companies to say they could use the newly passed "religious freedom" law to refuse service to same-sex couples.
Crystal O'Connor, the co-owner of Memories Pizza, told WBND-TV she would serve a gay or non-Christian couple at the restaurant, but would not cater a same-sex couples wedding.
The comments resulted in a flood of threats against the business on Yelp and Twitter.
The city of Houston has issued subpoenas demanding a group of pastors turn over any sermons dealing with homosexuality, gender identity or Annise Parker, the city’s first openly lesbian mayor. And those ministers who fail to comply could be held in contempt of court.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/10/14/city-houston-demands-pastors-turn-over-sermons.html
I agree with Governor Abbott's response to the Supreme Court's ruling:
“The Supreme Court has abandoned its role as an impartial judicial arbiter and has become an unelected nine-member legislature. Five Justices on the Supreme Court have imposed on the entire country their personal views on an issue that the Constitution and the Court’s previous decisions reserve to the people of the States.
“Despite the Supreme Court’s rulings, Texans’ fundamental right to religious liberty remains protected. No Texan is required by the Supreme Court’s decision to act contrary to his or her religious beliefs regarding marriage.
“The Texas Constitution guarantees that ‘[n]o human authority ought, in any case whatsoever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion.’ The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion; and the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, combined with the newly enacted Pastor Protection Act, provide robust legal protections to Texans whose faith commands them to adhere to the traditional understanding of marriage.
“As I have done in the past, I will continue to defend the religious liberties of all Texans—including those whose conscience dictates that marriage is only the union of one man and one woman. Later today, I will be issuing a directive to state agencies instructing them to prioritize the protection of Texans’ religious liberties.â€
...Besides, it's all just a distraction so that the TPP can pass.
Patchy wrote:Now if only Tone Abet stopped being an asshole about this...
Tone Abet and asshole are synonymous though.
Saikou wrote:To be honest, I don't really mind gay people, but far too many times have their rights overlapped with religious rights:
A Christian couple that owns a family farm in New York is pushing back after the state fined them $13,000 for refusing to host a same-sex wedding on their property.
According to The Daily Signal, Cynthia and Robert Gifford — the owners of Liberty Ridge Farm in Albany — filed an appeal Thursday with the appellate division of the New York Supreme Court. The Giffords claim the court did not keep in mind their rights under the Constitution and their religious beliefs in making its decision to fine them.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/christian-family-farm-gay/2015/06/25/id/652303/
The owners of an Oregon bakery learned Friday that there is a severe price to pay for following their Christian faith.
A judge for the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) recommended a lesbian couple should receive $135,000 in damages for their emotional suffering after Sweet Cakes by Melissa refused to make them a wedding cake.
As a result – Aaron and Melissa Klein could lose everything they own — including their home.Two Christian ministers who own an Idaho wedding chapel were told they had to either perform same-sex weddings or face jail time and up to a $1,000 fine, according to a lawsuit filed Friday in federal court.
A family-owned Indiana pizza shop that was forced to close its doors after the owners said they would not cater a gay wedding because of their religious beliefs, is now raking in thousands of dollars from supporters.
The owners of Memories Pizza in Walkteron, Ind., became one of the first companies to say they could use the newly passed "religious freedom" law to refuse service to same-sex couples.
Crystal O'Connor, the co-owner of Memories Pizza, told WBND-TV she would serve a gay or non-Christian couple at the restaurant, but would not cater a same-sex couples wedding.
The comments resulted in a flood of threats against the business on Yelp and Twitter.
The city of Houston has issued subpoenas demanding a group of pastors turn over any sermons dealing with homosexuality, gender identity or Annise Parker, the city’s first openly lesbian mayor. And those ministers who fail to comply could be held in contempt of court.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/10/14/city-houston-demands-pastors-turn-over-sermons.html
I agree with Governor Abbott's response to the Supreme Court's ruling:
“The Supreme Court has abandoned its role as an impartial judicial arbiter and has become an unelected nine-member legislature. Five Justices on the Supreme Court have imposed on the entire country their personal views on an issue that the Constitution and the Court’s previous decisions reserve to the people of the States.
“Despite the Supreme Court’s rulings, Texans’ fundamental right to religious liberty remains protected. No Texan is required by the Supreme Court’s decision to act contrary to his or her religious beliefs regarding marriage.
“The Texas Constitution guarantees that ‘[n]o human authority ought, in any case whatsoever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion.’ The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion; and the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, combined with the newly enacted Pastor Protection Act, provide robust legal protections to Texans whose faith commands them to adhere to the traditional understanding of marriage.
“As I have done in the past, I will continue to defend the religious liberties of all Texans—including those whose conscience dictates that marriage is only the union of one man and one woman. Later today, I will be issuing a directive to state agencies instructing them to prioritize the protection of Texans’ religious liberties.â€
...Besides, it's all just a distraction so that the TPP can pass.
1| It's their personal property and, as a result, they should be allowed to do anything the like with it, even if they are bigots.
2| This is a refusal of service in the service industry due to discrimination. I'm not sure if you have any experience or knowledge of the service industry, but this is unacceptable and the business is indeed in the wrong.
However, $135,000 is a completely batshit insane amount and 'emotional suffering' has always come off to me as a idiotic excuse that's abused over and over in court to extort the defendant of more money. The lesbians are crass bitches looking for a bigger buck.
3| I am not familiar with religious establishments or what their services are filed under. If it's the service industry, then they may have to comply. If it's purely by religious binding, then no. Their beliefs take priority over homos.
4| See my second point. Your religious beliefs and prejudice mean nothing in the service industry. If you hold them strongly, then you don't belong in the biz. Shape up or ship out.
5| This is just dumb.
6|TL;DR
Religion is stupid anyways. I'd rather we stopped believing in the magic man.
Believe in whatever you like, but if you are trying to tell me that God is anything other than basically the adult version of Santa Claus, you are provably wrong, and while I support your freedom to believe in these fairy tales, I still only do so begrudgingly.
Waifu wrote:Saikou wrote:To be honest, I don't really mind gay people, but far too many times have their rights overlapped with religious rights:
A Christian couple that owns a family farm in New York is pushing back after the state fined them $13,000 for refusing to host a same-sex wedding on their property.
According to The Daily Signal, Cynthia and Robert Gifford — the owners of Liberty Ridge Farm in Albany — filed an appeal Thursday with the appellate division of the New York Supreme Court. The Giffords claim the court did not keep in mind their rights under the Constitution and their religious beliefs in making its decision to fine them.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/christian-family-farm-gay/2015/06/25/id/652303/
The owners of an Oregon bakery learned Friday that there is a severe price to pay for following their Christian faith.
A judge for the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) recommended a lesbian couple should receive $135,000 in damages for their emotional suffering after Sweet Cakes by Melissa refused to make them a wedding cake.
As a result – Aaron and Melissa Klein could lose everything they own — including their home.Two Christian ministers who own an Idaho wedding chapel were told they had to either perform same-sex weddings or face jail time and up to a $1,000 fine, according to a lawsuit filed Friday in federal court.
A family-owned Indiana pizza shop that was forced to close its doors after the owners said they would not cater a gay wedding because of their religious beliefs, is now raking in thousands of dollars from supporters.
The owners of Memories Pizza in Walkteron, Ind., became one of the first companies to say they could use the newly passed "religious freedom" law to refuse service to same-sex couples.
Crystal O'Connor, the co-owner of Memories Pizza, told WBND-TV she would serve a gay or non-Christian couple at the restaurant, but would not cater a same-sex couples wedding.
The comments resulted in a flood of threats against the business on Yelp and Twitter.
The city of Houston has issued subpoenas demanding a group of pastors turn over any sermons dealing with homosexuality, gender identity or Annise Parker, the city’s first openly lesbian mayor. And those ministers who fail to comply could be held in contempt of court.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/10/14/city-houston-demands-pastors-turn-over-sermons.html
I agree with Governor Abbott's response to the Supreme Court's ruling:
“The Supreme Court has abandoned its role as an impartial judicial arbiter and has become an unelected nine-member legislature. Five Justices on the Supreme Court have imposed on the entire country their personal views on an issue that the Constitution and the Court’s previous decisions reserve to the people of the States.
“Despite the Supreme Court’s rulings, Texans’ fundamental right to religious liberty remains protected. No Texan is required by the Supreme Court’s decision to act contrary to his or her religious beliefs regarding marriage.
“The Texas Constitution guarantees that ‘[n]o human authority ought, in any case whatsoever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion.’ The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion; and the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act, combined with the newly enacted Pastor Protection Act, provide robust legal protections to Texans whose faith commands them to adhere to the traditional understanding of marriage.
“As I have done in the past, I will continue to defend the religious liberties of all Texans—including those whose conscience dictates that marriage is only the union of one man and one woman. Later today, I will be issuing a directive to state agencies instructing them to prioritize the protection of Texans’ religious liberties.â€
...Besides, it's all just a distraction so that the TPP can pass.
1| It's their personal property and, as a result, they should be allowed to do anything the like with it, even if they are bigots.
2| This is a refusal of service in the service industry due to discrimination. I'm not sure if you have any experience or knowledge of the service industry, but this is unacceptable and the business is indeed in the wrong.
However, $135,000 is a completely batshit insane amount and 'emotional suffering' has always come off to me as a idiotic excuse that's abused over and over in court to extort the defendant of more money. The lesbians are crass bitches looking for a bigger buck.
3| I am not familiar with religious establishments or what their services are filed under. If it's the service industry, then they may have to comply. If it's purely by religious binding, then no. Their beliefs take priority over homos.
4| See my second point. Your religious beliefs and prejudice mean nothing in the service industry. If you hold them strongly, then you don't belong in the biz. Shape up or ship out.
5| This is just dumb.
6|TL;DR
Religion is stupid anyways. I'd rather we stopped believing in the magic man.
Believe in whatever you like, but if you are trying to tell me that God is anything other than basically the adult version of Santa Claus, you are provably wrong, and while I support your freedom to believe in these fairy tales, I still only do so begrudgingly.
The fifth story (the one about the mayor of Houston) is best described as an infringement of the rights given in the First Amendment.
Moving on to the next paragraph, since I don't have much to say about the others.
Before we assume that God is, as you say, "basically the adult version of Santa Claus," we must take into account the problem of induction:
The problem of induction is the philosophical question of whether inductive reasoning leads to knowledge understood in the classic philosophical sense, since it focuses on the alleged lack of justification for either:
- Generalizing about the properties of a class of objects based on some number of observations of particular instances of that class (for example, the inference that "all swans we have seen are white, and therefore all swans are white", before the discovery of black swans) or
- Presupposing that a sequence of events in the future will occur as it always has in the past (for example, that the laws of physics will hold as they have always been observed to hold). Hume called this the principle of uniformity of nature.
The problem calls into question all empirical claims made in everyday life or through the scientific method and for that reason the philosopher C. D. Broad said that "induction is the glory of science and the scandal of philosophy". Although the problem arguably dates back to the Pyrrhonism of ancient philosophy, as well as the Carvaka school of Indian philosophy, David Hume introduced it in the mid-18th century, with the most notable response provided by Karl Popper two centuries later.
Shorten quotes please ; w ;
I'm pretty indifferent as to who believes in what as long as they don't force it on others, passively or aggressively.
Saikou wrote:Snip
EDIT: I deleted my whole argument because I'm tired and it's probably irrelevant. Saikou, I'll be opening a topic about this in afternoon where we can make our stances clearer if you're interested. I personally like and enjoy debate, so take it as an invitation moreso than a challenge.
ilu bby
Its about time.
However, I agree with @[deleted] with saying its all cover up for the TPP to pass. Win some, lose some I guess.
@[deleted] : In all interest in staying on topic, and not turning this into a conflict thread, im gonna have to ask you to stop. Other people have values, respect them.
@[deleted] : Same as above.
Ridorii~ wrote:Its about time.
However, I agree with @[deleted] with saying its all cover up for the TPP to pass. Win some, lose some I guess.
Marriage is dumb 'nyways. I'll be gay with whoever I wanna regardless.
Waifu wrote:Ridorii~ wrote:Its about time.
However, I agree with @[deleted] with saying its all cover up for the TPP to pass. Win some, lose some I guess.Marriage is dumb 'nyways. I'll be gay with whoever I wanna regardless.
but muh equality
Ridorii~ wrote:Waifu wrote:Ridorii~ wrote:Its about time.
However, I agree with @[deleted] with saying its all cover up for the TPP to pass. Win some, lose some I guess.Marriage is dumb 'nyways. I'll be gay with whoever I wanna regardless.
but muh equality
You think lack of marriage is gonna stop me from doing thangs to you? Hell naw.
Get on the bed.
♥
That's great. I just hope that churches aren't going to be forced to marry gay people off against their will.
biokouwr wrote:That's great. I just hope that churches aren't going to be forced to marry gay people off against their will.
Again, it really depends on what their union classifies as.
Honestly, I don't even understand the point of it. Maybe I'm just too jaded to care about that kind of symbolism, but I'm fine with a paper from the office than the whole 'down the aisle' shebang. In fact, I'd find it really aggravating to do.
Waifu wrote:biokouwr wrote:That's great. I just hope that churches aren't going to be forced to marry gay people off against their will.
Again, it really depends on what their union classifies as.
Honestly, I don't even understand the point of it. Maybe I'm just too jaded to care about that kind of symbolism, but I'm fine with a paper from the office than the whole 'down the aisle' shebang. In fact, I'd find it really aggravating to do.
Well, I don't really know how that is going in the USA, but if churches have the right to choose the couples they want to marry then it is good.Â
I'm actually a very anti-marriage person. I would have loved it when marriage with all it's benefits would be abolished, but that's not going to happen.
[deleted]
A good day for the homosexuals, a terrifying day for the homophobic.
inb4 "ur not homophobic, ur just an asshole!!!!!1!"
biokouwr wrote:Waifu wrote:biokouwr wrote:That's great. I just hope that churches aren't going to be forced to marry gay people off against their will.
Again, it really depends on what their union classifies as.
Honestly, I don't even understand the point of it. Maybe I'm just too jaded to care about that kind of symbolism, but I'm fine with a paper from the office than the whole 'down the aisle' shebang. In fact, I'd find it really aggravating to do.
Well, I don't really know how that is going in the USA, but if churches have the right to choose the couples they want to marry then it is good.Â
I'm actually a very anti-marriage person. I would have loved it when marriage with all it's benefits would be abolished, but that's not going to happen.
Context matters whether or not it's good. For example, if the binding down by a church counts as a service much how you'd expect from, say, a restaurant or a barber shop? Then no, it's not good to let them choose because that's basically discrimination. In fact, it's discrimination on both counts, but it becomes illegal once it's a service.
I personally will mostly consider this bad regardless, if only because Westboro totally fudged up... Everything.
Again though, it's really dodgy and I don't support the whole marriage thing/benefits/tradition myself either so, eh. As long as the gays can marry each other n' junk.
Waifu wrote:Context matters whether or not it's good. For example, if the binding down by a church counts as a service much how you'd expect from, say, a restaurant or a barber shop? Then no, it's not good to let them choose because that's basically discrimination. In fact, it's discrimination on both counts, but it becomes illegal once it's a service.
I personally will mostly consider this bad regardless, if only because Westboro totally fudged up... Everything.
Again though, it's really dodgy and I don't support the whole marriage thing/benefits/tradition myself either so, eh. As long as the gays can marry each other n' junk.
In my opinion it's as much an 'injustice' to force someone to do something they don't want as keeping someone out, but I see your point.