RIP Gordon
https://www.dtman.com/forum3/
It got straightened out in the end.
It was and it wasn't. Gray area. Context is important.
“The paradox is that even as America has become more tolerant of gays, many activists and liberals have become ever-more intolerant of anyone who might hold more traditional cultural or religious views. Thus a CEO was run out of Mozilla after it turned out that he had donated money to a California referendum opposing same-sex marriage. Part of the new liberal intolerance is rooted in the identity politics that dominates today’s Democratic Party… The same reversal of tolerance applies to religious liberty. When RFRA passed in 1993, liberal outfits like the ACLU were joined at the hip with the Christian Coalition. But now the ACLU is denouncing Indiana’s law because it wants even the most devoutly held religious values to bow to its cultural agenda on gay marriage and abortion rights.”
Hope all the plaintiffs have deep pockets or aclu friends.TPRJones wrote:The bill could in theory be used to make Gay Jim Crow.
It shouldn't and it probably won't very much, but there will be at least a few incidents I'm sure.
Vince wrote:Arkansas to become the 20th state to pass a religious liberty bill along with the federal governments.
Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson says he does not plan to sign the religious freedom bill that sits on his desk right now, instead asking state lawmakers to make changes so the bill mirrors federal law. The first-term Republican governor said he wants his state "to be known as a state that does not discriminate but understands tolerance."
How rightful is your damning now?Vince wrote:Looking at what does and doesn't produce great outrage in this nation, a couple of weeks ago a woman in Colorado literally ripped an unborn 7 month old baby out of a pregnant mother and left the child to die alone in a cold bathtub. In that case the state opted to not charge the woman with the murder of the baby.
This nation is rightfully damned and will probably be brought to its knees soonly.
Hell, I don't know anymore. I do believe the freedom from religion folks are jumping on this bandwagon as well. No proof of that, but most of the hate is coming not from Christians, but from atheists. Almost to a person, every Christian business owner I've heard speak said they would never refuse any other service to a homosexual, but they we uncomfortable with the marriage thing. They are not discriminating against the people. They are discriminating against being part of a specific ceremony that they feel goes against their religious beliefs. And I think we've shit the first Amendment with this.GORDON wrote:"The end of tolerance, and rise of enforced morality."
http://thefederalist.com/2015....orality
This shit is hard for me to understand, and I think I am getting measurable stupider as I age, but is this law about the bakery refusing to bake a cake for the gay wedding?“The paradox is that even as America has become more tolerant of gays, many activists and liberals have become ever-more intolerant of anyone who might hold more traditional cultural or religious views. Thus a CEO was run out of Mozilla after it turned out that he had donated money to a California referendum opposing same-sex marriage. Part of the new liberal intolerance is rooted in the identity politics that dominates today’s Democratic Party… The same reversal of tolerance applies to religious liberty. When RFRA passed in 1993, liberal outfits like the ACLU were joined at the hip with the Christian Coalition. But now the ACLU is denouncing Indiana’s law because it wants even the most devoutly held religious values to bow to its cultural agenda on gay marriage and abortion rights.”
They are discriminating against being part of a specific ceremony that they feel goes against their religious beliefs.
That goes with one of my long standing ideas. Keep marriage and civil unions as two different things. One is civil and one religious.TPRJones wrote:Indeed. The fundamental problem is that society has conflated a civil institution and a religious one into a single mish-mash. There either needs to be no legal effects of marriage, or it needs to stop being a religious thing. That's the only way to solve the problem.
This. You could grandfather churches in or something but have them as separate things and separate titles. You could even work around all the cake and photography stuff by having the baker and photographer contract with the churches. Then the couple isn't hiring them.TPRJones wrote:I like it if you mean someone getting "married" would also have to file for a civil union if they wanted to be counted as a couple under tax law and have spousal privileges and etc. The marriage part is just a church thing.