|
Are you guys sure he isn't being sarcastic?
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 04:54 |
|
|
ZDar Fan posted:"Do you want an America that has no guns, and free meals and free healthcare and free everything?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2VxpTMAbas
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
So just so we're clear, there's nothing like... forcing churches to do any gay weddings right? Like, the courts have to obviously but actual churches don't have to right? So what on earth is the problem? I could understand anti-gay marriage folks getting upset if the churches were suddenly forced to perform gay weddings even though they don't believe in it, but that's not happening. There's nothing about this being forced on to them besides the anti-gay marriage folks that work at the courts, and well we all have to deal with stuff at our jobs we don't want to. I'll never understand why they feel anything is being forced on them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
Because gays marrying will cause the apocalypse. And also it's just REALLY ANNOYING that they can get married.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
weekly font posted:I'm not very religious now but my parents baptized me into Episcopalian and I'm always happy that they're the first to be progressive as hell. I have a cousin who is in the Episcopalian clergy, and she might be one of those yes votes. Her wife is clergy also.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
Macaluso posted:So just so we're clear, there's nothing like... forcing churches to do any gay weddings right? Like, the courts have to obviously but actual churches don't have to right? So what on earth is the problem? I could understand anti-gay marriage folks getting upset if the churches were suddenly forced to perform gay weddings even though they don't believe in it, but that's not happening. There's nothing about this being forced on to them besides the anti-gay marriage folks that work at the courts, and well we all have to deal with stuff at our jobs we don't want to. I'll never understand why they feel anything is being forced on them. While I'm not saying every Christian is like this, a lot of people who are making noise are Christians with a martyr complex, who love to imagine they're chosen people who are blessed by God as the world ends around them. This is why everything ever is a "sign of the end times" and that God/Jesus is coming, or the Rapture, or blah blah blah. Simplistically, this is just one step closer to the churches being attacked and, much like a gun nut prepping for the day where his home is invaded by thugs, paranoid devout people are itching to act like they're being oppressed and persecuted (despite having such influence in American society for so long). Semi-realistically, something a lot of people are clinging to is religious institutions, namely things like Christian Colleges, losing their 501(C)(3)--their tax exempt status-- because a judge and a lawyer openly said in a single statement to each other that there might be an issue regarding whether they have to regard same sex couples, in the same way they had to with interracial marriages, in order to retain their tax exemption.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 23:34
|
|
|
Macaluso posted:So just so we're clear, there's nothing like... forcing churches to do any gay weddings right? Like, the courts have to obviously but actual churches don't have to right? So what on earth is the problem? I could understand anti-gay marriage folks getting upset if the churches were suddenly forced to perform gay weddings even though they don't believe in it, but that's not happening. There's nothing about this being forced on to them besides the anti-gay marriage folks that work at the courts, and well we all have to deal with stuff at our jobs we don't want to. I'll never understand why they feel anything is being forced on them. I think the less idiotic opponents are worried about churches and religious schools possibly losing their tax-exempt status, which is possible but I haven't studied the issue enough to know how likely that is. The worries about churches being forced to marry gays are unfounded though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
joat mon posted:It's not meaningless to them. To them, the basis for your beliefs on the matter may be meaningless. If you're willing to not scream at them, find one who's willing to not scream at you and talk. You may both convince each other that you're people and not strawmen. You're not going to change their mind in a day, but you might in a year. Samurai Sanders fucked around with this message at 23:54 on Jul 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
Macaluso posted:So what on earth is the problem? Fearmongering and people willfully misreading things like the Ocean Grove case to be about forced participation in gay marriages.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
Do It Once Right posted:As a break from the entertaining histrionics of adults throwing tantrums, here's a glimpse of the response to come: It'll be great watching these get struck down by courts in any state that passes them. Epic High Five posted:I always thought the honey locust that was referred to in the bible was the fruit of the locust tree though? Either one of the proper locust trees or the locus bean tree? It's also not saying "only eat Locusts" unless you're illiterate as hell. It's saying of the insects you should eat, here's a list, including the same thing twice. It's also Leviticus, and TBH Christians shouldn't actually care about anything of his unless they like to ignore the whole "Jesus died for you and the old rules don't apply" which, granted, the religious right in the US tends to do because they're stupid fuckers. Macaluso posted:So just so we're clear, there's nothing like... forcing churches to do any gay weddings right? Like, the courts have to obviously but actual churches don't have to right? Correct. There is no requirement for churches to perform SSM ceremonies, even if the couple is a part of their congregation, and there has been no court case to try and force the issue either. Likely because the SSM couple would lose, and lose badly due to the protections that religious institutions have for their operation and beliefs. If someone tried to sue to make Generic Christian Church officiate a SSM the SCOTUS would strike it down and it'd almost certainly be a 9-0 ruling with Scalia being a smug "I loving TOLD YOU SO" fucker in his opinion. I'd be shocked if any gay rights group in the country would want to pick that fight because they can only lose, even if they somehow win in court. MaxxBot posted:I think the less idiotic opponents are worried about churches and religious schools possibly losing their tax-exempt status, which is possible but I haven't studied the issue enough to know how likely that is. The worries about churches being forced to marry gays are unfounded though. This is only slightly more likely but still has less chance than Bernie Sanders being elected with the Dems sweeping the House and Senate.
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
Pay up http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2015/07/sweet_cakes_final_order_gresha.html#incart_m-rpt-1  quote:Oregon Labor Commissioner Brad Avakian on Thursday ordered the owners of a former Gresham bakery to pay $135,000 in damages to a lesbian couple for refusing to make them a wedding cake. Avakian's ruling upheld a preliminary finding earlier this year that the owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa had discriminated against the women on the basis of their sexual orientation. Though I think they made that amount on gofundme
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
http://thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/...ple-today.html/ Boom, first lawsuit being filed against a county in Texas for refusing to issue a license on Monday.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 00:03
|
|
|
Macaluso posted:So just so we're clear, there's nothing like... forcing churches to do any gay weddings right? Like, the courts have to obviously but actual churches don't have to right? Correct. Nothing's forcing gay couples to have a religious ceremony, much less a Southern Baptist or Mormon ceremony or whatever, certainly no more than it's been forcing simply non-religious people to have a church wedding.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
It's happening in Kentucky, too: http://www.newsweek.com/four-kentucky-couples-sue-clerk-refusing-issue-gay-marriage-license-349812
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 00:08
|
|
|
Macaluso posted:So just so we're clear, there's nothing like... forcing churches to do any gay weddings right? Like, the courts have to obviously but actual churches don't have to right? So what on earth is the problem? I could understand anti-gay marriage folks getting upset if the churches were suddenly forced to perform gay weddings even though they don't believe in it, but that's not happening. There's nothing about this being forced on to them besides the anti-gay marriage folks that work at the courts, and well we all have to deal with stuff at our jobs we don't want to. I'll never understand why they feel anything is being forced on them. A lot of them think that churches are actually being forced to perform marriages, because they don't know that civil marriage is a thing that exists.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:He's trying to change my mind (or someone like me) though, right? When you try to change someone's mind, you have to address their beliefs, not just talk about your own. Yes, both sides would have to do so. 'Seek first to understand, only then to be understood' and all that. MaxxBot posted:I think the less idiotic opponents are worried about churches and religious schools possibly losing their tax-exempt status, which is possible but I haven't studied the issue enough to know how likely that is. The worries about churches being forced to marry gays are unfounded though. Pretty much. Applying strict scrutiny, the Supreme Court in 1983 held that religious schools are not exempt from racial anti-discrimination laws. The Court also held that "purely religious institutions" are exempt from racial anti-discrimination laws. Obergefell didn't mention what level of scrutiny sexual orientation would get, so that's still an open question. If it is rational basis or intermediate scrutiny, religious schools will probably able to discriminate, particularly in light of a 2012 the Supreme Court that (in a different context) arguably expanded 'purely religious institutions' to include religious schools. Churches will never have to marry gays against their will. It's an open question whether religious schools will be able to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, but cynical me says probably so.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Yes, both sides would have to do so. 'Seek first to understand, only then to be understood' and all that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
I think the biggest problem there is is having discussion about SSM elsewhere on the internet is a fundamental mis-alignment in how different groups are viewing "attacks". The way I see it usually go down is something like so: Fundamentalist Fred: "Well according to my religion, gays should not be able to get married" Homosexual Harry: "Uh, you realize that's a really bigoted opinion, right? You can make that choice for yourself, but you can't dictate my life with your religion..." Fundamentalist Fred: "I AM BEING OPPRESSED, MY RELIGIOUS FREEDOMS ARE BEING TAKEN AWAY BY SODOMITES!" Its like the fundamentalists can't/won't even realize that trying to withhold rights from a whole group of people is a really really lovely thing to do. Some people are a bit nicer about it, like that one Texas clerk that said "I do not believe it is right, but I swore an oath and I will do my job." Good on her for doing what she was hired to do and keeping her bigotry from directly affecting others...but she's still holding a bigoted opinion. I've yet to find a good way to address this with people though...because no matter how much I try to calmly and rationally "No, I'm not 'name calling' or being mean...you really are championing a fundamentally bigoted cause", all I get back is "You're oppressing me, I have a religious right to oppose the gays"
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
5 years ago a church in Mississippi refused to marry its own congregants because they were black. Or rather, they agreed to it and nobody gave a drat, but then church elders found out that black people were marrying within their white sacred halls and refused the ceremony. And then their pastor had to marry two of his congregants at a different loving church. The only recourse available to those two people was to find a different church. So no, gays are not going to impinge upon the sacred workings of churches. Churches are free to segregate and discriminate by race or sexual orientation with total impunity. e: found it. http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/30/us/mississippi-black-couple-wedding/ That's from only 3 years ago. Not 5. Jesus christ Bethamphetamine fucked around with this message at 01:12 on Jul 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
jivjov posted:how different groups are viewing "attacks" gay people view 'attacks' as things done with baseball bats, guns, or groups of people beating the gently caress out of us and then dragging us behind their pickup trucks until we are turned to a frothy pulp begging for sweet death. bigots view 'attacks' as facebook posts which make them feel sad or uncomfortable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
jivjov posted:I think the biggest problem there is is having discussion about SSM elsewhere on the internet is a fundamental mis-alignment in how different groups are viewing "attacks". The way I see it usually go down is something like so: There is none. The people who think they have the moral high ground by trying to speak politely to these people to make them understand is as futile as the ones screaming at them. You just wait for them to die out. The only thing you should be doing is point out to them how bigoted and vile their opinions are, no matter how much they try to dress it up like will of god or some other poo poo. If most of the people around them tell them their opinions are vile, they'll eventually shut up about. The ones who could change their minds about it already shut up or changing their minds by now. Like, jesus, does someone have to post the parable of the racist tree again?
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
jivjov posted:I've yet to find a good way to address this with people though...because no matter how much I try to calmly and rationally "No, I'm not 'name calling' or being mean...you really are championing a fundamentally bigoted cause", all I get back is "You're oppressing me, I have a religious right to oppose the gays" I think what makes it even harder to have that conversation is that so many people that feel that way want to be able to express that opinion without consequence. Sure, it's their right to follow their religious beliefs, but it's also my right to express that I think that particular belief is bigoted and hateful. Nobody is taking away religious marriage or altering its meaning, but civil marriage is now available for any pair of consenting adults. No one loses. In that light, it's really difficult to listen to their arguments about feeling oppressed without an internal eye roll.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Though I think they made that amount on gofundme I'm pretty sure the gofundme page was shut down for some TOS violation, something about promoting illegal activity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
Nelson Mandingo posted:I hate to be "that guy" but nations with atheism as their national policy typically have atrocious human rights records. Religion or lack of it doesn't cure people of being lovely to one another, especially if it's culturally ingrained. to be fair, north korea probably has a really low murder rate
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
corn in the bible posted:to be fair, north korea probably has a really low murder rate Somehow I doubt that...
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
Stickman posted:Somehow I doubt that... It might be true as long as you don't count the slave camps.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 02:56
|
|
|
Stickman posted:Somehow I doubt that...
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 02:57
|
|
|
Stickman posted:Somehow I doubt that... it's only murder if it's illegal
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
I'm excited about all the dialog the events of the last few weeks have kicked off. It is horrible that it took a mass murder to start a strong push toward telling racist assholes that holding on to their dog-whistle white power poo poo isn't ok, but at least it's on the radar now. Here's another interesting one. It's from a NYT contributor and not a staff writer, but there is an article in the Times calling for the end of religious tax exceptions. I know this has been discussed for a long time, but this feels different somehow, and I like it. http://time.com/3939143/nows-the-time-to-end-tax-exemptions-for-religious-institutions/
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 03:09
|
|
|
Extensive Vamping posted:Go ahead, rent a tux to a homosexual for their "wedding". Just don't be surprised if it comes back covered in AIDS. And that poo poo is impossible to get rid of
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 03:43
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:Why did people take a post with lines like these seriously? I dunno, but gorging oneself on homosexuality sounds like it might be fun.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Pay up Gofundme shut them down because their actions broke the law, but let them keep 109k they made so far. They have some other funding thing going on but it's not doing as well: https://www.continuetogive.com/helpsweetcakesbymelissa Unless they get a surge of donations soon they're probably hosed. corn in the bible posted:to be fair, north korea probably has a really low murder rate Only because government-sanctioned executions aren't technically murder.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:I dunno, but gorging oneself on homosexuality sounds like it might be fun. Michelle Obama's next national health initiative will be to teach children to consume homosexuality in moderation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 04:04
|
|
|
Oh poo pooquote:Entire Tenn. County Clerk’s Office Resigns Over Same-Sex Marriage Licenses http://www.newschannel9.com/news/top-stories/stories/entire-tenn-county-clerks-office-resigns-over-samesex-marriage-licenses-18421.shtml
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Oh poo poo Wikipedia: Decatur County, TN posted:As of the census of 2000, there were 11,731 people, 4,908 households, and 3,415 families residing in the county. The population density was 35 people per square mile (14/km²). FAUXTON fucked around with this message at 04:26 on Jul 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
Keeshhound posted:Michelle Obama's next national health initiative will be to teach children to consume homosexuality in moderation.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
Good thing there's a social welfare safety net available to subsidize their homophobic bigoted protest.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 04:30
|
|
|
Jealous Cow posted:Good thing there's a social welfare safety net available to subsidize their homophobic bigoted protest. Except if you quit your job you won't be able to get unemployment if your former employer challenges it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 06:41
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:"Jesus died for you and the old rules don't apply"
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 06:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 04:54 |
|
|
I've got some friends whining about cakes on Facebook, and I'd like to argue with them, but I'm still not clear on how the free speech laws work in America. Could someone give me a tl;dr of the nuances in law between the following scenarios? Which ones are illegal, and why? 1. Refusing to bake a generic wedding cake for a gay couple. 2. Refusing to bake a cake with a pro-gay slogan. 3. Refusing to bake a cake with an anti-gay slogan. I was searching for news articles to find precedents, and found that only the second one has resulted in a bakery losing, but I can't reconcile that with the bakery in #3 winning the case that was filed against them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 3, 2015 06:47
|
|
