Gov to Ministers: Marry Gays or Go to Jail

[fj1200]

Really??

Islam murders over insulting its prophet, they hang gays in nations they control and you think government here coming into their mosques to force r them to accept gays, to even marry gays -- will not get swift, massive and totally extreme violent reaction?

Surely you aren't that blinded....Tyr

Your fear overwhelms you.

[revelarts]

Here's another way to look at this case

Christians who own a business have no final say in how it's run inline with their beliefs.
So can Chic-Fil-a legally close on Sundays if a customer wants a sandwich, if a homosexual wants a lemonade?
Can A local Roman Catholic pharmacy owner refuse to carry morning after pills?
Can A Muslim bookstore owner refuse to order anti-Muslim books or Porno for anyone even homosexual customers?
Can a Jewish deli owner refuse to sell pork to customers or even homosexual customers with a sausage fetish?
Are they all bigots and "breaking equal access/service laws" if they do?

THEY ARE ALL CLEARLY BUSINESSES.

Please explain the differences here. I see none.
All are Private Businesses with Religious owners who refuse to serve certain customers request for religious reasons.
period. All significant points legal and otherwise exactly the same.

If one is discriminatory, then they all are.
By some people's standards they all must be ordained and take their "businesses" INSIDE the Church/Mosque/Temple or be in violation of the law.
And be considered religious bigots of course.

[fj1200]

That is BS by both our definitions i believe FJ, you seem fairly libertarian.
but that above is the opposite of that view.
as the Constitution and DOI state,
Rights are Inherent, inherent in each person. Given by God (if you will or even if you won't)
the power of the state --if any --comes from the people.

There are natural rights given by God and then there are rights in the Constitution given by man. The right to marriage isn't in there. Right of Association is in there though. Contract "rights" are granted by States UCCs.

YES. you got it.
Whatever the people want, any changes .
Which could be/will be ANYTHING, including marriage to dogs or motorcycles.

that's the point.
that's the point.
that's the point.

And no, I don't have any more.

[PixieStix]

It has never been about being equal, it has always been about being above the rest of us, and squashing religious liberties. The leftist radicals push this agenda Plain and simple, whether they are gay or not.

For the not so radical gays, it is about making themselves feel a bit more "normal", plain and simple.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Your fear overwhelms you.

No my friend, my concerns do not overwhelm me but they damn sure inspire me and fire me up..
However never doubt this, when push comes to shove , in the past I always shoved back hard enough to solve the problem. Not even government gets to force me to yield because of its might and power.
I mean it when I type ffkk them too.
I don't play...
We all got to die someday, I believe I will just go out with my integrity intact..

If that means years earlier than what would have happened then so be it...
I draw the line at messing with my family , my religion or my Constitutionally insured freedoms. How about you?
I was taught to always be prepared... And I am.... --Tyr

[fj1200]

Please explain the differences here. I see none.

Only one is refusing to engage in a business that they normally would engage in. Guess which one. Should they be able to refuse? Sure, but the law is what is in question.

And I had to laugh at "sausage fetish."

[gabosaurus]

It has never been about being equal, it has always been about being above the rest of us, and squashing religious liberties. The leftist radicals push this agenda Plain and simple, whether they are gay or not.

For the not so radical gays, it is about making themselves feel a bit more "normal", plain and simple.

How is one adult's freedom to marry another adult construed as "squashing religious liberties?"

[fj1200]

No my friend, my concerns do not overwhelm me but they damn sure inspire me and fire me up..
However never doubt this, when push comes to shove , in the past I always shoved back hard enough to solve the problem. Not even government gets to force me to yield because of its might and power.
I mean it when I type ffkk them too.
I don't play...
We all got to die someday, I believe I will just go out with my integrity intact..

If that means years earlier than what would have happened then so be it...
I draw the line at messing with my family , my religion or my Constitutionally insured freedoms. How about you?
I was taught to always be prepared... And I am.... --Tyr

.8% of the population overwhelms you.

[revelarts]

There are natural rights given by God and then there are rights in the Constitution given by man. The right to marriage isn't in there. Right of Association is in there though. Contract "rights" are granted by States UCCs.

Uh NO.
there are no rights "given by man".
Man can recognize rights but not give rights.
man can protect rights
but sadly often man takes rights away.... or assume they can give them to others which is the same thing really.

FJ if you make biz deal you may AGREE to an arbitrator for ALL disputes, COMPLETELY without ANY gov't.

the gov't does not privilege you to create a contract. period.
you can make one and be subject to U.S. law if you like. but if not you don't have to.

look the CLEAR thing is human relations and agreements, are a God given human right.
the Constitution tells the gov't WHAT authority it has, not what rights the people have FJ.
that's the basic understanding to the constitution and freedom.

But in one sense your right, the Constitution should not and does not mention marriage.
and as the 9th and 10th amendment mention

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

"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."

[revelarts]

Only one is refusing to engage in a business that they normally would engage in. Guess which one. Should they be able to refuse? Sure, but the law is what is in question.

And I had to laugh at "sausage fetish."

All are engaging in a business they normally would engage in
Chic-fil-a sells sandwiches --- just not on Sundays
Roman Catholic Pharmacist sell drugs --- just not THAT drug.
Muslim Bookstore owners sell books and DVDs --- just not THOSE books and DVDs
Jewish Deli owners sells meats --- just not THAT kinda meat.
Wedding chapel owner does weddings --- just not THAT kinda wedding.

Each is concerned with a certain type or specific detail laid out in their faith.

What is your distinction again?

[Gunny]

If you're referring to gay marriage then they are now equal... in most states. If you're referring to NDA then I'd probably agree with you. The moral basis for the Civil Rights Act was that blacks couldn't get served and are in need of protection and laws guaranteeing access (Constitutional arguments aside). AFAIK there is no shortage of establishments where a gay couple could be married (any JOP would be obligated I would guess) and if you think a gay couple can't find a baker to make a cake...

My problem with those laws is that they violate the liberties of individuals on the one hand and are just completely unnecessary on the other. I haven't seen any definitive studies that suggest that gays, as a group, are truly harmed by discrimination and NDA laws just fall into the "we wanna be nice to everyone" category. That's not a reason to pass legislation IMO.

They're unequal. By the fact alone that I am normal means I don't get a gay marriage. Just a marriage.

Add an adjective and there's nothing equal about anything.

[fj1200]

All are engaging in a business they normally would engage in
Chic-fil-a sells sandwiches --- just not on Sundays
Roman Catholic Pharmacist sell drugs --- just not THAT drug.
Muslim Bookstore owners sell books and DVDs --- just not THOSE books and DVDs
Jewish Deli owners sells meats --- just not THAT kinda meat.
Wedding chapel owner does weddings --- just not THAT kinda wedding.

Each is concerned with a certain type or specific detail laid out in their faith.

What is your distinction again?

Only one business chooses to not serve a customer that comes knocking.

No one can get a Chik-fil-a on Sunday.
No one can get THAT drug.
No one can get THOSE books and DVDs.
No one can get THAT kinda meat.
Only one type of customer can't have that wedding.

And like I said before I think it's bad legislation.

They're unequal. By the fact alone that I am normal means I don't get a gay marriage. Just a marriage.

Add an adjective and there's nothing equal about anything.

You can have one if you like I suppose. It's just a "marriage" err, union between two individuals.

[fj1200]

Uh NO.
there are no rights "given by man".
Man can recognize rights but not give rights.
man can protect rights
but sadly often man takes rights away.... or assume they can give them to others which is the same thing really.

FJ if you make biz deal you may AGREE to an arbitrator for ALL disputes, COMPLETELY without ANY gov't.

the gov't does not privilege you to create a contract. period.
you can make one and be subject to U.S. law if you like. but if not you don't have to.

look the CLEAR thing is human relations and agreements, are a God given human right.
the Constitution tells the gov't WHAT authority it has, not what rights the people have FJ.
that's the basic understanding to the constitution and freedom.

But in one sense your right, the Constitution should not and does not mention marriage.
and as the 9th and 10th amendment mention

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

"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."

I might have to give a nod to Gunny but I think it boils down to a semantic argument. Natural Rights are God given, anything listed in the Constitution is granted by man. God doesn't give you the right to bear arms.

But I'm not sure what to make of the rest of the post. Legislation determines who can engage in a contract and the courts resolve disputes when arbitration is not a factor. Anyway, don't get me wrong, if the Feds hadn't stepped in it 1000+ times with marriage in the Federal Register then it's possible that we're not having this discussion. Equal Protection says that if there is going to be a law then it needs to be equal on all. You can't cherry pick 9A and 10A and think it resolves the issue... it doesn't, 14A is key here.

[revelarts]

Only one business chooses to not serve a customer that comes knocking.

No one can get a Chik-fil-a on Sunday.
No one can get THAT drug.
No one can get THOSE books and DVDs.
No one can get THAT kinda meat.
Only one type of customer can't have that wedding.

...

No one can get a Chik-fil-a on Sunday.
No one can get THAT drug.
No one can get THOSE books and DVDs.
No one can get THAT kinda meat.
NO ONE can get THAT type of Marriage... or several other kinds.
only one type of Marriage service provided.

If a homosexual man and woman wanted to marry well then the chapel would be HAPPY to oblige i'm sure. That's what they do, marry 1 man to 1 women in HOLY matrimony. That's all they do in the marriage dept..
Just as Kosher deli only sells Kosher Foods.

If you want Pork you simply go somewhere else. If you want to Browse and sit with others as they eat or marry fine. But the services are limited.

Can a Christian Couple DEMAND that a Satanist preform a Christian Wedding at a Satanist Chapel?
Or Vis-a-versa?

It's crazy to claim that one be forced to by law, it's a clear violation of religious freedoms.

[fj1200]

It's crazy to claim that one be forced to by law, it's a clear violation of religious freedoms.

As I said I agree, I was just pointing out the difference.