Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:So If I choose to not cater to a GLBT couple or community, I'm a bigot, or can be sued because of my religious beliefs?

 

Are you a caterer?

Quote:So If I choose to not cater to a GLBT couple or community, I'm a bigot, or can be sued because of my religious beliefs?



I'm proud of Obama as a black man to another black man, but sometimes I just shake my head at him.

This sounds like you only support him because he is black?


Right now you still have the right to refuse service as a private individual or business on the federal level. Some states have passed anti-discrimination laws for the LGBT community but it's not a federally protected minority class yet. I agree with you that it shouldn't be a protected minority class that people should be able to reserve the right to refuse service or association.


However I do find this a fascinating topic with you because I'm sure you support other anti-discriminatory laws. Why do you support anti-discrimination laws for some and not others? Your religious belief maybe that homosexuality is a sin and you should not condone or participate in anyway. Someone else's religious belief might be that black people are sinful and they shouldn't associate with them what's the difference?

Quote:This sounds like you only support him because he is black?


Right now you still have the right to refuse service as a private individual or business on the federal level. Some states have passed anti-discrimination laws for the LGBT community but it's not a federally protected minority class yet. I agree with you that it shouldn't be a protected minority class that people should be able to reserve the right to refuse service or association.


However I do find this a fascinating topic with you because I'm sure you support other anti-discriminatory laws. Why do you support anti-discrimination laws for some and not others? Your religious belief maybe that homosexuality is a sin and you should not condone or participate in anyway. Someone else's religious belief might be that black people are sinful and they shouldn't associate with them what's the difference?

 

The claim that people are refusing service to gay couples is a half-truth. In the case of bakeries, gay customers were not turned away. Anyone could buy anything in the store no matter what his/her sexual preference was. The customer could have bought a generic wedding cake with no trouble. The refusal was to make a special cake that celebrated a particular lifestyle that the baker disagreed with. How is that any different from refusing to bake a cake with a confederate flag on it?

If anyone turns me away I'll get the gay mafia to "shut Em down". If you know what I mean.........

Quote:If anyone turns me away I'll get the gay mafia to "shut Em down". If you know what I mean.........

 

Talk of a "gay mafia" makes me wonder about the ceremony to become a "made man (or woman)". I bet it's like an orgy...or something.

^^^ Day dreaming again RJ?

Quote:The claim that people are refusing service to gay couples is a half-truth. In the case of bakeries, gay customers were not turned away. Anyone could buy anything in the store no matter what his/her sexual preference was. The customer could have bought a generic wedding cake with no trouble. The refusal was to make a special cake that celebrated a particular lifestyle that the baker disagreed with. How is that any different from refusing to bake a cake with a confederate flag on it?

 

A lot different. With the case in Oregon the law says businesses cannot discriminate or refuse service based on sexual orientation, just as they cannot turn customers away because of race, sex, disability, age or religion. When they add "geographical heritage" to the law then it would be not different.

Quote:^^^ Day dreaming again RJ?

 

My interest is from a purely scientific perspective.

I do always laugh at seemingly non religious people claiming religion as the reason they don't agree with gay lifestyles. Can I say the word religion? I HAD a FB "friend" who's twice divorced go on a rant about the ruling. Good times. If you think it's yucky or gross, just say so. I personally don't think straight lovin' is all that appetizing, but I don't get in everyone's face about it - just don't shove it down my throat or "flaunt" it. <--that's somewhat of a joke.

Funny how you make light of the destruction of someone's livelihood AND illegal assault on their Free Speech rights. Tolerance...it don't mean what it used to.

Quote:Funny how you make light of the destruction of someone's livelihood AND illegal assault on their Free Speech rights. Tolerance...it don't mean what it used to.

 

Tolerance is a one-way street with traffic dictated by the media.

Quote:Funny how you make light of the destruction of someone's livelihood AND illegal assault on their Free Speech rights. Tolerance...it don't mean what it used to.

 

lol, what illegal assault?

Quote:lol, what illegal assault?

 

Perhaps he is referring to the fact that the couple that refused to serve the gay couple were ordered by the Oregon Government that they no longer have First Amendment rights.  It's just purely speculation on my part though.

Quote:The 14th amendment doesn't say anything about black people either. Nor does the 1st amendment say anything about Native Americans. The Fourth Amendment doesn't mention Hispanics and the second doesn't mention whites. In fact, the Constitution does a quite wonderful job of speaking generalities when it comes to people it applies to. No doubt this was done intentionally to avoid this exact argument.

 

And people like to throw out the 10th Amendment whenever it suits their argument but if you'd actually brother to read the bloody thing you'd know the 10th actually furthers my argument. to save you the bother of looking it up, here's the text of the 10th Amendment:

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. (Emphasis added by me)

 

See the "prohibited by it to the States" part? That's rather important because that helps enforce the 14th Amendment. See, the 14th prohibits unequal treatment under the law only referring to "any person within its jurisdiction". Since marriage is a contract whose terms are determined by the laws by the state and federal governments. To deny such a contract based on sexual orientation is to enforce unequal treatment something specifically prohibited by the 14th Amendment. 

 

Marriage isn't just a contract.  It is an institution that has to be defined.   because if Marriage is simply a contract then why would a contractual agreement be limited to two parties?  

 

There are some contractual agreements that while binding are not given preferential status, such as a marriage.  As in the above case of a qualified versus non qualified insurance contract or retirement plan.  We outline the basic fundamentals of contracts all the time through the legislative process and that is where the definition of marriage should have been decided.  With the existence of civil unions, there was no demonstrable compelling reason for a unilateral decision such as this and it is the admission of the five justices themselves that it was based more on emotion than law.

Quote:Marriage isn't just a contract.  It is an institution that has to be defined.   because if Marriage is simply a contract then why would a contractual agreement be limited to two parties? 

 

... or who the contract is between. 

 

Personally, I don't believe the government should have the ability to define who gets married. I believe, however, that there should be a marital contract, but I don't know how people can say that marriage is an inalienable right. 

Quote:... or who the contract is between. 

 

Personally, I don't believe the government should have the ability to define who gets married. I believe, however, that there should be a marital contract, but I don't know how people can say that marriage is an inalienable right. 

 

It's not.

Quote:I do always laugh at seemingly non religious people claiming religion as the reason they don't agree with gay lifestyles. Can I say the word religion? I HAD a FB "friend" who's twice divorced go on a rant about the ruling. Good times. If you think it's yucky or gross, just say so. I personally don't think straight lovin' is all that appetizing, but I don't get in everyone's face about it - just don't shove it down my throat or "flaunt" it. <--that's somewhat of a joke.

Guess it depends at what buffet you are eating at

Quote:Are you a caterer?

 

No.

 

+1 for the sarcasm though.

Quote:This sounds like you only support him because he is black?

 

 

He is a educated, sophisticated black man at that. 

 

Just like how Italians, Asians, and Russians support their own popular political/ celebrities in their own heritage, black people can do the same thing and it not be considered racist. 

 

edit* I have also been critical of Obama regarding his foreign policy (on here specifically) as well as the GLBT Marriage issue. 

Quote:He is a educated, sophisticated black man at that. 

 

Just like how Italians, Asians, and Russians support their own popular political/ celebrities in their own heritage, black people can do the same thing and it not be considered racist. 

 

edit* I have also been critical of Obama regarding his foreign policy (on here specifically) as well as the GLBT Marriage issue. 

I cannot grasp how a person of color cannot see how equal rights should apply to everyone.