Did the LGBT community pick the wrong fight.

alfadriver wrote:

Fletch1 wrote: Activist judges was a big part.

In what way? Judges are supposed to judge of the legality of laws, too. If a law if unconstitutional, then it has to go. This is a good example of that. That's more like activist legislation. Or the majority limiting the rights of the minority. Neither of those are good.

That wasn't activism. Activism is saying (twice, now) "the ACA as written is actually unconstitutional, but we're going to tell you exactly what to say and do to make it look constitutional, event though you've berked it up twice now." THAT is activism. Note that I'm not saying that the concept of the ACA is right or wrong - I'm just saying the whole, "it's a penalty, not a tax, no wait, it's a tax, not a penalty, which is it again?" thing was an egregious example of SCOTUS activism.

Stating that ALL citizens get access to the same civil benefits and constitutional protections is not activism.

In reply to Datsun1500:

What is the actual point that you are trying to argue?

Here's mine: We should not discriminate on the basis of race, creed, ethnicity, social status, sexual orientation, or any number of other personal factors. If you provide goods or services to the public, and you provide unequal offerings of goods or services based on one of those above factors, it is discrimination. Requiring people to offer the same type of goods and services to all people is not tyranny.

Datsun1500 wrote: I don't make rainbow flag cakes because I don't believe in what it stands for. I don't make confederate flag cakes for the same reason. I don't believe in what the flag itself stands for.

As far as I'm concerned, that's cool. But the point is, you're not saying "rainbow cake is fine for Customer X but not for Customer Y". You can refuse to make swastika cakes, or Confederate flag cakes, or Star of David cakes, or crucifix cakes as long as you like. But if you decide to make them, you don't get to choose who you sell them to based on your perception of their race, gender, creed, or berk preference.

So if I make wedding cakes I have to make them for everyone? OK I accept that. But what if I am a wedding singer? If I turn down a gig because I don't want to attend and be a part of a wedding, am I subject to the same lawsuits? What about a caterer? If I'm a baker and you request delivery and I offer the service am I required to deliver it? Or do I have to no longer offer delivery to avoid litigation?

moparman76_69 wrote: So if I make wedding cakes I have to make them for everyone? OK I accept that. But what if I am a wedding singer? If I turn down a gig because I don't want to attend and be a part of a wedding, am I subject to the same lawsuits? What about a caterer? If I'm a baker and you request delivery and I offer the service am I required to deliver it? Or do I have to no longer offer delivery to avoid litigation?

Or a photographer?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/03/refusing-to-photograph-a-gay-wedding-isnt-hateful/284224/

Having done my share of lighting up weddings and the like.. there are tactful ways to get out of doing the job. You can price yourself out of it, you can tell them you are already booked, and any number of other "business" ways to rid yourself of a customer you do not want to do business for. Coming right out and saying "I don't believe in your marriage, so I won't do it" is not one of those ways

Pretty sure this needs to be here too.

In reply to Toyman01:

So that explains why some profile pics got rainbowed.

even if i disagree with Scalia's dissent, i agree with his sentiment that supreme court rulings are looking less like judicial decrees and more like stentorian and sweeping declarations of grandeur.

Its not so much judicial activism as it is judicial sensationalism. I get the feeling most of the justices are now part of the generation of politicians that are obsessed with personal legacy and their own sphere of influence.

Even recent rulings I agree with just .... read terribly. Most have tenuous explanations of logical association with the Constitution, and it doesnt matter if its a 'living document' or 'as it is written' argument. And that is their absolute function; comparison against the Constitution. No other charge/responsibility they have is higher.

Datsun1500 wrote: To try and bring it back on track to the original question, a better fight would have been to get the government out of all marriage, instead of trying to make them decide who can, and can't be married, but that's a moot point now. I'm sure it was just easier to get them to recognize gay marriage, and look how long that took. The sad part of it all is the fact that people fought it for so long. I'll never understand why so many straight people are against it, how does it affect you anyway? Most gay people I know are in long term relationships, and most straight people I know are on their 2nd (or more) spouse, but that's ok for some reason. If anyone here is truly against it, can I ask why? What's the reason you think it's so bad? Is it religion? My father was not allowed to be in the same room as his partner as he was dying because of a God that you believe in? I'm supposed to disown my daughter, and convince her that she's somehow screwed up because? I'm actually curious, of why it's so bad?

I'm a Christian. The Bible says it's immoral. That's my stand.

However, and it's a big one. I revere the Constitution almost as much as the Bible. It's none of my or the governments business. Free country and all that.

This passage is rather pointed.

Matthew 7:1-3

This one also.

Mark 12:30-31

30 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’[a] 31 The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.

Also this one.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal

So, that's me. I don't always remember those three, but I do try most of the time.

Edited multiple times to fix the formatting.

Toyman01 wrote: Pretty sure this needs to be here too.

That is awesome!

Geezus, just finished my daily job search on Indeed and even they went rainbow on their logo. Dang, it ain't all that.

Because a new group of people have gained the rights they deserve somehow Christians are under attack.

"Oh goodness! Christians are no longer dictating how people are treated in this country! Lawd help us!"

It's a great day when logic dictates what decision is made as opposed to dogma and tradition.

In reply to jj; what this guy said x 2

In reply to Datsun1500:

hm. these people are pointing out things from a Christian perspective, and what you're citing is old testament... Generally, Christians don't accept those teachings absent the new testament. a correct perspective is important when framing the discussion.

Xceler8x wrote: Because a new group of people have gained the rights they deserve somehow Christians are under attack.

Cool your rockets there, snarkboy... Christians aren't under attack - yet.

Are you going to bet some vigilante, crusading buttwipe won't take a church to court because it refuses to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies?

jj wrote: Since many times it appears that Christians are the focus of homosexual groups wanting "rights", I also worry is that it won't stop with this. Next someone will want to get married in this church or that church and will pick a fight with that. Further down the road it will be that pastors can't call homosexuality a sin or else it's akin to a hate crime.

It does make sense.. Christianity -is- the majority religion in this country. As for getting married in a church, the Pastor can already deny anybody the right to get married in his (or her)church. When my parents got married in the church, the pastor almost denied them because my mom was Catholic and my Dad was a Lutheran

I'm sure that there are many people happy that the marriage process can detour around the church altogether.

In reply to Mitchell:

There are also quite a few who will take a church to court because they found a beautiful little church that would be perfect for their pictures but the bigoted pastor wouldn't marry them. I have a relative that wanted to get married in a particular church years ago and the pastor at first denied them because they were not members of the church or the religion. Then when she sued they performed the service because they feared they didn't have much money for court.

Wally wrote: In reply to Mitchell: There are also quite a few who will take a church to court because they found a beautiful little church that would be perfect for their pictures but the bigoted pastor wouldn't marry them. I have a relative that wanted to get married in a particular church years ago and the pastor at first denied them because they were not members of the church or the religion. Then when she sued they performed the service because they feared they didn't have much money for court.

Wow. Sorry, Walls, but that was a douchebag move. Their church, their rules.

In reply to Datsun1500:

If you aren't a Christian, he doesn't. Kind of like if Russia tells its citizens to paint their faces purple, we don't have to.

But, when this country was founded, it was a Christian country, so a lot of God's laws made it into man's laws. If this had been a Muslim country, you can bet you wouldn't be eating pork. As the morality of the country changes, the laws are being changed. Strictly religious laws are removed. Personally I think that's a good thing. Legislated morality never works.

If you don't like a law, get it changed. There is a process for that and that's exactly what the LGBT community did.

Datsun1500 wrote: The people I'm replying to said "the bible" and "God" said its wrong. There was no "this part of the book" and "the second time he said". I'll keep it in mind that 1/2 of the book is wrong, but the other 1/2 is correct. I didn't know.

Maybe this will help. http://www.gotquestions.org/Christian-law.html

Edited to add this.

Toyman01 wrote: But, when this country was founded, it was a Christian country, so a lot of God's laws made it into man's laws.

Actually, most of our founding fathers were Masons and Episcopalian/Unitarians, which are Protestant faiths. God the Architect is an overall concept that they followed, not the God of the old testament. There is no reference to earthly miracles or the heavenly host fire and brimstone (which was actually a fairly recent addition to Christian fear-based teachings) or any of that for them. In God We Trust doesn't necessarily mean the God that you know in your teachings. In fact, the Jefferson Bible is what government officials are sworn in on, and it has all mention of Christ as the Son of God removed, as well as any miracles he was supposed to have performed. Just the teachings on how to treat each other with love and brotherhood. THAT'S what our country was founded on.

Just like the "under God" part of the Pledge Of Allegiance was added in the 1920s, modern Christians in American have forgotten what this country was really about and have tried to take it over as their own.

In reply to Chris_V:

That's the same Jefferson that wanted the crime of homosexuality punished by dismemberment? The morality of this county was Bible based and that morality made it into the laws, be they contrary to the constitution or not. Now we are headed in a different direction and as always, the government pendulum swings to extremes.

And, thanks for those references. I've got some reading to do.

In reply to Duke:

It is but we are turning into a country full of douchebags that can't be told no without running to court. Not just for marriages and churches but every perceived injustice. It's why so many people and businesses pay settlements or institute silly rules even when they are in the right. That's a rant for another day.