Homosexuality and Evo, Creo, and ID

Sure jar, your Word Magic can change anything from good to evil and evil to good. Congratulations. Just sling some terms like "bigot," "discriminate," making that bogus equation between a person's First Amendment freedom with support of "slavery" so the constitutional freedom can be removed without anyone protesting, which has been the devil's method for decades now. He finally succeeded in getting a few Christians criminalized by it. Oh how well he has has done his work. But of course he isn't going to stop there. I'd say get out the popcorn but I think some of us are going to be too busy for that.

Since I mentioned the ruling in favor of gay marriage bans in four states by the Sixth District Circuit Court, I wanted to post the majority opinion in that case, the only sane thing to come out of a court case on this sort of issue in aeons: ...a view of marriage shared not long ago by every society in the world, shared by most, if not all, of our ancestors, and shared still today by a significant number of the States. A flash of sanity in a darkening world.

And those consequences are:1.) Do not offer your services to the public.
2.) Suck it up and make the damned cake anyways.I don't understand why a Christian business owner, when faced with these two options, cannot just make the cake with the understanding that they are only doing it to have a business license and that they are not, in fact, validating the marriage by making the cake.Can you explain why that is impossible?In Message 993, you ask: Absolutely, I would. I couldn't care less what the cake says.You know why? Making a cake doesn't validate anything.I can literally write anything on a cake and not care in the slightest because it means absolutely nothing.You could hire me to bake a cake that says: "Faith has been right this whole time and everything I've said on this thread is wrong" and it wouldn't matter to me in the slightest. Because its wrong and writing it on a cake doesn't make it right, nor does it matter.Its just icing on cake. Its literally meaningless. I'd put "The Pope is the antichrist" on a cake, IDGAF.

Everything you've said against gay people was said against black people during segregation.That should be telling.

Most black people know better, they know there is no legitimate comparison between the black Civil Rights movement and this attempt to legitimize a nonracial nonethnic group. Shall we make pedophiles the next protected Minority? You'll scream that there's no comparison but there is. These groups are defined by their feelings and desires, unlike a racial or ethnic group. And these feelings and desires were considered by most societies to be aberrant up until very recently and of course still criminal in the case of pedophiles. But you know what, I think it really could come to protecting pedophiles too in one form or another. The RCC already protects theirs in the priesthood by relocating them where they can continue to molest children unrecognized.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Nope. Paedophiles harm children - hence a law to protect the vulnerable. Gay sex is only legal between consenting adults who are assumed to not require protection. Yes, religious organisations think that their law can trump secular law. They're wrong aren't they?

I wasn't comparing the movement. I was comparing what you said about the groups. And my point stands:What you are saying about gay people was said about black people. Sure, why not?Have a business deny service to a person because they are a pedophile and let's see what the courts decide.There's nothing wrong with having sexual desires and people shouldn't be discriminated against for having them.Acting on them is another story when it comes to non-consenting adults, though. Hmm, I didn't scream. Feelings and desires are perfectly acceptable things to base protected classes on.You know how I know? Religion is a protected class and that is nothing but feelings and desires.I was hoping to get a explanation in response to my question in Message 1113...

Not necessarily. You can be a pedophile who has never had sex with a child.And I think if people discriminate against you based on just your sexual preference, then that should be disallowed as well.

quote:

---

Is there any reason to believe that anybody is a reliable source at this point?

---

More reliable than Coston ? Almost any historian of the period should be.

Sure, so long as they don't kiddie-fiddle or download kiddy porn and share it, they're not committing an offence. But I did assume that Faith meant paedophilic acts. I think that's rather trickier. I think people are allowed to discriminate against those that engage in criminal acts. For example a bank could refuse to employ a convicted thief.I doubt an active paedophile would attempt to exert his rights to have a cake made of him buggering a child. And I doubt the baker would have much of a problem if he refused.

You're assuming the pedophile has engaged in criminal activity and I am not.How about this one:"I refuse to offer you the services my business provides because you have a speeding ticket, you filthy criminal, get out of here!"Discrimination or not?

I don't even know what you are referring to about what I said. But I also can't imagine that it matters since the two groups are not comparable as many blacks will tell you, and they rightly resent the comparison.

It is a good ruling actually, even if I think ultimately the decision was wrong, the reasoning is pretty interesting. The bit that is getting quote mined at Christian sites is particularly amusing. The court almost seems to be saying they realize it's absurd:

quote:

---

So long as judges can conceive of some plausible reason for the lawany
plausible reason, even one that did not motivate the legislators who enacted itthe
law must stand, no matter how unfair, unjust, or unwise the judges may consider it as citizens.

---

The 'plausible' reason they came up with? Men and women can procreate and marriage is needed to regulate this and decide what happens to the resultant children. Is that true? I don't think so - heterosexual couplings produce children where there is no marriage and the law manages to regulate the dealings here too. But as long as its any 'plausible' reason for the law, right?

quote:

---

It does not take long to envision problems that might result from an absence of rules about how to handle the natural effect s of male-female intercourse: children. May men and women follow their procreative urges wherever they take them? Who is responsible for the children that result? How many mates may an individual have?

---

It goes on to talk about how State's don't bother to prevent people marrying dozens of times, sometimes multiple times to the same person over their life. It doesn't stop people from marrying when they have children in another marriage. It doesn't stop friends who want tax benefits from marrying. So, asked the court, how can we deny the claimants?BECAUSE WE'RE HYPOCRITESYup.

quote:

---

History is replete with examples of love, sex, and marriage tainted by hypocrisy. Without it, half of the world’s literature, and three-quarters of its woe, would disappear.

---

It acknowledges that a same-sex marriage ban is harmful, but states that it's out of their jurisdiction.

quote:

---

Yes, we cannot deny thinking the plaintiffs deserve betterearned victories through initiatives and legislation and the greater acceptance that comes with them. But maybe the American people too deserve betternot just in the sense of having a say through representatives in the legislature rather than through representatives in the courts, but also in the sense of having to come face to face with the issue

---

I have to agree with Faith, this is perhaps one of the best argued verdicts that I disagree with that I have seen. I'm particularly disappointed with the 'any reason' of 'irresponsible procreation'. You can read it hereThough the dissent has a zinger in it's opening that's worth highlighting:

quote:

---

The author of the majority opinion has drafted what would make an engrossing TED Talk or, possibly, an introductory lecture in Political Philosophy. But as an appellate court decision, it wholly fails to grapple with the relevant constitutional question in this appeal: whether a state’s constitutional prohibition of same-sex marriage violates
equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

---

---

So the question is - if the lower courts really do only have to find 'any reason' for a law to exist, even absurd ones that fly in the face of all reason and justice - then what will the Supreme Court find? Will they agree with the Dissent:

quote:

---

Proceeding to a legal analysis of the core issue in the litigation, the district court then concluded that the proscriptions of the marriage amendment are not rationally related
to any legitimate state interest. Addressing the defendants’ three asserted rational bases for the amendment, the district court found each such proffered justification without merit.

​

Principally, the court determined that the amendment is in no way related to the asserted
state interest in ensuring an optimal environment for child-rearing.

---

Meanwhile I notice everybody is ignoring the majority opinion in the Sixth District Circuit Court's decision which I quoted in [Msg=1112]. I expect you not to like it of course.ABE: But now I see that Modulous has responded to it above.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

More stuff you can learn Faith.The US Court of Appeals for the 6th District covers Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee.It is irrelevant when discussing the Bakery case.