The most common definition of a slave is: A person who is the property of and wholly subject to another. There is another definition however: A person entirely under the domination of some influence or person. Slavery has been outlawed in the US for 150 years, but some people want to bring it back… but not necessarily in the form you might think. Uncle Sam of course is not a master and citizens are not his slaves. The government – at least not the government defined in the Constitution – doesn’t have the right to tell Americans who they have to work for or who their businesses have to serve.
It can however, at least according to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, demand that businesses that offer to provide services to the public not discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. That means however that if you are offering to sell cakes, you must not decide that you will sell cakes to men and not women, to Jews but not Christians, to blacks but not whites, or to a native born American but not a naturalized citizen born in Canada.
Interestingly, other than religion all of the limitations are innate, things that people are born with or had from birth. That prohibition also applies to the later characteristics defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act. The CRA says what a business can’t do, it can’t discriminate based on a clear set of criteria… but it says nothing about what they must do. A black chef can’t legally refuse to provide service to someone who walks in simply because he’s white. He can however choose not to provide service to him when the man tells him that the event is a celebration of KKK history. That’s discrimination, but it’s legal discrimination and its well within the chef’s rights.
The CRA lists specific criteria upon which a business is not allowed to discriminate: race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. But that’s it. Other than those reasons any business can choose who they would like to serve. A 7-11 store is well within its rights to say “No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service”. By the same token a gun store can choose not to sell a gun to a drunk person and business can choose not to hire people with tattoos. A community can limit its inhabitants to those over 55 or a storekeeper with a Napoleon complex can choose to never serve customers over 6 ft. These restrictions may or may not be prudent, but none of them are illegal as businesses have the right to choose to whom they provide services within the framework of the CRA, the ADA and the Equal Protection Clause upon which both are based.
Which brings us to the issue of bakers and photographers and others. The question is, working under the shadow of the Equal Protection Clause, do such businesses have the right to refuse to provide services for a gay wedding, something their faith tells them is a sin? Absolutely. Do they have the right to refuse to provide services for a gay wedding? Absolutely. Should they be protected from lawsuits for doing so? Of course.
The point is, in almost every one of these cases the service providers did not refuse service because someone was gay. Rather, they declined to participate in an activity their faith tells them is sinful. Indeed the baker in the case actually offered to let the gay couple purchase any one of the cakes in his shop. He was simply refusing to bake a gay themed wedding cake.
The distinction between the activity and a customer’s gayness or lack thereof may be a fine one, but it is an important one. The CRA says businesses cannot discriminate against customers based on various innate or unchangeable characteristics. Significantly, the characteristic of being gay is not among them. Which means that theoretically businesses have the right to discriminate against gays or 22 year olds or journalists with no threat of government sanction. Nonetheless, most Americans oppose discriminating against people for their sexual orientation and the businesses in question were not doing so. (Similarly, 85% of Americans believe service providers should be allowed to decline to participate in gay weddings.) They were simply declining to participate in an activity that their faith says is sinful.
The jilted couples in these cases looked to the government to force the said businesses to provide the services they wanted. In all three cases the government obliged stating that the religious objections of the business owners were trumped by the couple’s equal protections. That is both unfortunate and absurd. If the government can force a Christian baker to bake a cake for a gay couple, can it force a Muslim grocer who does special orders to special order pork? Can it compel the aforementioned black chef to cater the KKK’s event? Can it force a vegan landlord to rent his building to someone wanting to open a steakhouse? The answer of course is no, no and no and the reason is because Americans are not slaves and the government has no right to compel them to do things that go against their moral convictions.
That is likely news to people in government (and their liberal enablers) who believe they are the masters of the American people. They are not. Americans are free and by constitution they have given government limited powers – even if the government is increasingly obliterating those limits. Of those freedoms, religious freedom is among the most important. It is what brought the Pilgrims to America 400 years ago and it’s been a hallmark of American society ever since. A government commanding its citizens to do things beyond its scope is never a good idea, which Obamacare demonstrates on a daily basis. A government commanding its citizens to do something that goes against their religious faith is even worse because it undermines the fundamental legitimacy of the government itself. If these rulings stand, if the most basic freedom to abstain from participating in activities your religion tells you are sinful is now largely gone, then the progressive barbarians are no longer at the gate… they’ve entered your home, taken control of your life and have carte blanche to force you to do whatever it is they demand – or face ruinous consequences otherwise. Such is the kindling with which revolutionary fires are often started…
See author page
The law of man:
The Thirteenth Amendment:
Involuntary servitude can exist in the USA ….. WHEN a person has been arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced for a crime on the books calling for such servitude.
Due process.
The Law of God:
1 Corinthians 8
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
So, how does this apply?
Simple.
The Government cannot legislate conscience.
Christian consciences vary with maturity on many gray areas among Christians.
Some Christians see making a cake and setting it up as a way to show their love for the sinner even though they hate the sin.
Other Christians see that act as abetting sin.
Both are right….for themselves!
~~~~~
Will the government, by an attempt at legislating conscience, force those business owners – whose entire religion (Islam) opposes homosexuality – into making cakes and bouquets and photo arrays?
Somehow, I think those people will get an exemption.
The Declaration of Independence says that people are endowed by their creator with certain “unalienable rights”, such as “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. If we are to be a truly free society, minorities of all types should be free to be who that are and not be discriminated against by restaurant owners, photo studios, bakeries, etc. The government has the obligation to advocate for victims of discrimination.
Should an African-American baker be forced to bake a cake for a KKK rally?
@rockybutte:
So what you are saying is that even small mom and pop cafes should be required to provide halal/kosher food on their menus because it would be discriminatory not to? All dress shops should be required to sell burkas? Muslim owned butcher shops should be required to sell pork. Black owned photographers/caterers should be required to service a KKK rally?
@rockybutte:
Your rights stop when they become other people’s obligations… at least within the confines of the CRA & ADA.
@VoteOutIncumbents:
How about this one..
Do you believe that the Federal Government has the right to regulate interstate commerce? Do you believe that this “baker” participates in such commerce ?
I sam old enough to remember when proud segregationist Lester Maddox kept blacks out of his restaurant with axe handles He later became Governor of Georgia (D) course that was when the Dems had many conservatives.
Once upon a time, your right to swing your fist ended just before my nose.
Now, apparently, you have the right to hit me as often as you want, because my restriction on your right to swing is discriminatory.
When a baker can be compelled by law to make a gay wedding cake, or a florist can be compelled by law to provide flowers for a gay wedding, that baker or florist is no longer free. The business person is faced with two choices: either bow to the government or go out of business.
Under this regime freedom has been replaced by compulsion.
Boston Tea Party, anyone?
@john:
Pathetic comparison unless you can tell me how I can identify someone is gay just by looking at them.
@john:
So John should this happen? I’d say the hair cutter is a lib.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2014/03/04/new-mexico-gov-denied-haircut-due-to-gay-marriage-stance-n1803989
@rockybutte:
It sounds like legislating against “hurt feelings”. Those “minorities of all types” do live in a free society when they are free to choose to take their business elsewhere. But does a Colorado baker live in a free society when he is being forced to participate- against the conscience of his faith as he understands it- in a same sex wedding celebration that even the state he lives in does not acknowledge, since its Constitution defines “marriage” as being between a man and a woman?
His lawyer:
If I were to walk into a shop and the shop owner had a prejudice against Asians, I’d rather he be upfront and open about it and tell me he doesn’t “serve my kind”. I’d rather take my business elsewhere than have a baker who didn’t approve of my wedding still hired to bake my cake. So long as he is not a physical threat to me, he should be free to feel and think and act as he does.
My understanding is the baker has gay patrons and has no problems with treating them respectfully as customers and making them cakes; but for him, a wedding cake crosses a line into endorsement and participation of something his faith does not recognize.
There is no shortage of bakers out there who would love the business, who would celebrate the joy of making a gay wedding cake. Why take this to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission? Why bring in the lawyers?
Which side is displaying more prejudice, intolerance, and oppressiveness?
I personally am not affected- whether it’s civil unions or called marriage, I don’t really care. What I am disturbed by is the self-righteous moral oppressiveness of liberals to “force” others to accept their beliefs trumps others’ beliefs.
This isn’t government neutrality. It’s government endorsement.
I’m also disturbed and perturbed by the blurring of gender differences and distinctions where it’s up to the individual to decide what gender he/she/it chooses to be.
Prager:
I have no issue with gay couples. I just don’t quite get the comparison of “gay rights” as the next “fighting the good fight” as it relates to the civil rights struggle of the 60s. There’s a vast difference between genders; none of significance between “races”. I think it’s possible to be against the redefinition of marriage and not be labeled a bigot, homophobe, or be anti-gay.
I don’t agree with Prager on the question of whether or not redefining marriage to mean something other than between a man and a woman is good for society- that one is up in the air for me. However, I do think he raises interesting points:
And no matter how much you may yearn for otherwise, to pretend, to redefine, this fact remains regardless of belief and definitions: It takes girl parts and boy parts to procreate new life. It’s not hatred or bigotry to recognize that. And a big part of marriage has a lot to do with this.
Let’s examine your claim in light of the following instance:
http://libertyunyielding.com/2014/03/03/gay-nm-hairdresser-refuses-service-nm-governor-defending-traditional-marriage/
According to your assertion, the federal government is obligated to force the gay hairdresser to service the GOP Governor in order to protect her from discrimination. Is that correct?
I think we need to be careful how we define religious freedom. For example, there is nothing in the Christian bible I’m aware of forbidding the baking of a cake that is then taken somewhere to use in a gay wedding ceremony. Every day people make products for and provide services to adherents of belief systems they do not recognize or endorse. I’m sure that Catholic bakers, for example, bake for weddings that wouldn’t be recognized as valid in Rome all the time. This is why the halal/kosher comparison is false. Trying to force someone to do something expressly forbidden in their religion, like a Muslim handling pork, is not the same as baking and selling a cake. It’s not asking the baker to marry someone if his or her own gender, for example. The fact that the baker told the couple to pick our a different cake and use that instead shows how silly the entire thing is. So your religion allows a gay couple to use a cake you made for a birthday in their wedding, but not one you make specifically for their wedding?
This kind of thinking was at the heart of Arizona’s SB 1062, and to call it a slight overreaction to several isolated incidents similar to the holy baker is an understatement. Simply put, this bill would have allowed anyone to refuse services to a gay person for any reason. Should a fireman or policeman be allowed to invoke religious freedom and not respond to a call at a gay person’s house? The innocuousness of the baking incident, and the ugly aftermath, shouldn’t blind everyone to consequences of allowing an endlessly elastic definition of “religious freedom”, which is actually nothing more than a blank check on discrimination. As Republican Governor Jan Brewer said, “Senate Bill 1062 does not address a specific or present concern related to religious liberty in Arizona. I have not heard one example in Arizona where a business owner’s religious liberty has been violated.“.
Okay, so Tom, with regards to the following instance:
http://libertyunyielding.com/2014/03/03/gay-nm-hairdresser-refuses-service-nm-governor-defending-traditional-marriage/
In order to disallow an endlessly elastic definition of “religious freedom”, should the federal government be obligated to force the gay hairdresser to service the GOP Governor in order to protect her from discrimination?
@john: They had conservatives now they have communists. Which are you?
http://libertyunyielding.com/2014/03/03/gay-nm-hairdresser-refuses-service-nm-governor-defending-traditional-marriage/
______________________________________________________
One of the comments from “Tired in TX” : I thought was interesting…
…So a gay vendor can refuse service to a client because the client is anti-gay marriage, but someone who is anti-gay marriage cannot refuse service to a gay person. Reverse discrimination?
If someone wants to refuse to take my money, I will just find someone who will. That is the calm, rational way to handle it.
The crux of this issue is that LGBTQIs have been successfully identified as a “class” of people as distinct as race or sex. Science, however, does not provide enough evidence to suggest this.
I’m not saying that someone isn’t legitimately “gay” (or LGBTQI). The problem is that sexual orientation seems to be a product of biology, psychology, and social development. It shouldn’t be ignored or treated with disrespect, but it does require careful consideration since anyone can claim to be LGBTQI without having a way of “proving” it legitimately. It’s their word and it must be accepted.
Race isn’t an opinion or a feeling, and neither is gender. If a person dies, you can say with scientific, observable accuracy that they are a man or woman, as well as what “race” they would be considered (race is groupings of genetic tracers, nothing more…but still pertinent and verifiable…like all things genetic).
The same cannot be said of sexual “orientation” (I’m finding that term to be a little too flawed these days). It’s not genetic (or we haven’t discovered a genetic cause yet), and it’s more social than biological.
Again, I’m all for equality, and bigotry towards LGBTQIs is wrong, BUT when you can decide to be gay for awhile…become straight again (it happens more frequently than the press will say)…whatever…it’s hard to acknowledge LGBTQI as an immutable characteristic. A straight person can decide to become “gay” tomorrow, and there’s no way to know that “they’ve just always been that way” (which I DO believe is the case with many LGBTQIs) or they are just trying on a new social fad. I can’t pretend to be another race. I can’t pretend to be woman (I could have a sex change, but my pesky Y chromosome would persevere…I’d be man in every scientific meaning of the word whether I felt it or not). I can have sex with men and tell you I’m gay. No one would argue it and I’d now be of special class of people historically oppressed, but now boldly demanding “equality” for a behavior rather than a genetic reality.
Bottom line: Sexuality has always been a complex and confusing issue. It was thousands of years ago, and it is today. I don’t believe anyone is “straight” or “gay”, and I don’t believe we need to fabricate a hostile and dividing social class that politicians and leftists can exploit.
This issue is about power and spread of values/culture. Some see LGBTQI as an act that isn’t conducive to a functional society or the tenants of their faith. Others see LGBTQI as new group to emancipate/liberate.
Until you can prove sexuality is some kind immutable genetic trait (like race or gender) that a person can’t change or develop differently on depending on external and internal factors, it’s not rational to treat it as a new “class” of humanity. It’s a gray area that is open to interpretation, and most people will be “right” on some aspect. “Don’t tell the gay guy he can’t have service” – true. “Don’t tell me to accept a person’s actions that are against my beliefs and faith, even if that person has found a social status for something that isn’t verifiable and scientifically mutable already – true.
@Kraken:
I think both the gay cake couple and the governor have the same recourse if they believe they’ve been the victims of discrimination. They can take the matter to court. In both examples I would personally be of the opinion that I’d have just taken my business elsewhere. So I get that reaction. At the same time, clearly only one of those examples is freighted with a long history of systematic discrimination which likely influenced the perception of the event as being larger than just the event itself. Talking about the overreacting gay couple who were mean to the nice cake baker is an easy way to lose sight of why there are anti-discrimination laws in the first place. Discrimination is a way a group in power disenfranchises another group and limits their opportunities to pursue economic and social equality. No one can be forced to participate in gay marriage. But when we decide that it’s okay to not serve a gay person in a diner or stop for one in a cab or provide medical care to one, or hire one for a job, I have a hard time buying that’s a religious freedom issue. Unless, of course, we’re saying that anyone can decide what their religious beliefs are at any time relating to any situation. Otherwise, I am not aware of any religion that explicitly forbids people from waiting on gay customers or driving them in a car or giving them first aid. Now if you want to argue that we should be free to discriminate against whomever we want for whatever reason, that’s a different argument. I personally don’t want to live where a first responder can opt out of caring for someone for “religious reasons”, or even – a less dramatic example – having my family bear witness to someone being turned away from being served ice cream in an ugly scene. I don’t think that’s good for a civil society or for a business climate.
@Tom:
Wrong. You have the right to be insulted, so pout away, if that is what you wish to do. But you, and no one else, has the right to demand the services of others when they don’t want to provide you a service. But unlike the gay couple, I doubt the Governor will sue her hair dresser.
How was the gay couple disenfranchised by a baker, who is not a group, but a single person? Was the gay couple not allowed to gain employment, vote, rent an apartment, buy a car, or any of the hundreds of other things people do every day? Was there no other available baker within traveling distance of their home that they could purchase a cake from? The bottom line is they were insulted and did what liberals do when they don’t get their way; they sued and took the baker to court. According to progressives like you Tom, you have a legal right to sue someone because they insulted you. That is not the way our government was meant to be.
I think you’re a jerk. I would tell you that to your face. Does that disenfranchise you in any way? No, it doesn’t. And it also doesn’t give you the right to sue me simply because I hurt your widdle feelings.
@Tom:
Bogus scenarios. How would a first responder even know the sexual preferences/religion of the person they were caring for or how would the ice cream service know that information about your family?
Actually, Tom, there is NO prohibition for a Muslim to ”handle” pork, such as a checker scanning a pack of bacon or a trucker hauling pork to market.
Not a word.
Just as there is no prohibition for Muslims to touch alcohol.
In the case of alcohol, the Koran actually says, ”do not come to the mosque for prayer when you are drunk.”
Now, I ask you, is it implied in the verse that the Muslims can drink alcohol, even get drunk as long as it doesn’t dovetail with their prayers?
Yes.
And, in the past Muslims celebrated with alcohol, even considering a Muslim poet, Omar Kayan, their top poet.
He waxed poetic famously about ”a jug of wine, a loaf of bread and thou (his spouse).”
But nowadays many Muslims are going beyond what is written.
Easy as only about 4% of Muslims can actually read AND UNDERSTAND the Arabic Koran which is never translated for them except by their imam who they must trust, but who lies.
So, today Muslims believe (wrongly) that the Koran prohibits all dogs (it allows all work dogs and non-black dogs) the transport or touching of alcohol, women showing more than face and hands in public (there’s a very interesting back-story to that one!) and so on.
PS, Obama has backed up Muslims who took work at a trucking company but want to pick and chose which shipments to move. they signed an agreement to transport everything (pork and alcohol included in the list) but now they want to be paid while not doing so. Obama sides with them.
Note, the EEOC is making Islam a special case.
Muslims are to be accommodated for their modern beliefs without even proving they come from the Koran.
Catholics, on the other hand, are forced to pay for abortions.
Christian bakers, florists and photographers are being forced to pay if they don’t accommodate homosexual’s perverse demands.
It might as well be that Obama is forcing squeamish people to assist when someone is vomiting.
Some people can do it, others cannot.
Force can’t change that.
It can, however, create an income stream in fines and penalties.
Seems that’s the whole thing with Obama….separating people he doesn’t consider his people from their money.
@Faith7 #16:
“If someone wants to refuse to take my money, I will just find someone who will. That is the calm, rational way to handle it.”
Gay people learned well that for black people who were historically refused services, your “calm, rational way to handle it” was unacceptable. Silly arguments over which characteristics are “innate” and which characteristics aren’t not-with-standing, the Constitutional provisions in support of equality ultimately brought to an end the second-class status of blacks in this regard exactly as it is in the process of doing for gays. The crucial argument against your “solution” has become apparent in recent days: Once a society agrees that discrimination in the delivery of services is allowable – for ANY reason – there is no end to where such discrimination may be applied. Emergency room doctors refusing to treat the mortally wounded, etc. etc. There is no legitimate place for such discrimination.
During periods of the “draft,” people who “conscientiously object” to war are allowed to NOT serve in the military. They are not given the right to pick and choose WHICH wars they object to. People who want to bake wedding cakes are similarly constrained: They can skip baking the wedding cakes and bake cookies instead, or they can bake wedding cakes for black, white, straight and gay people – and even for people who are NOT getting wed, but they don’t get to pick and choose who they bake for, because that is discrimination. If you have a moral, religious or other objection to war, you should avoid enrolling in ROTC at college. Similarly, if you have moral, religious or other objections to serving various members of the public, you should avoid vocations which cater to that public.
@rockybutte:
The SCOTUS has consistently held the the Declaration of Independence has no bearing whatsoever on the law.
The high court views it as an important historical document in regards to it’s specific purpose, (to declare independence from England based on it’s listed grievances,) yet do not consider it part of the ‘law of the land’ which it predates. While certain parts of the D of I influenced the writing of the Contitution, the SCOTUS does not recognize any legal precedence based on the Declaration of Independence.
Therefore your argument is invalid.
@George Wells:
Blacks were discriminated against because of their looks. Are you saying that you can tell a person is gay just by looking at them because I damn sure can tell a person is black just by looking at them.
Mortally wounded means you are dead. If you mean critically wounded, then how would the ER doctor know your religion, your politics or your sexual preferences? Do you think people volunteer that information when they are seeking ER treatment?
Why? Does the Constitution state that my religious rights end at the store front door? No, it doesn’t. But on the flip side, using your standards the gay store owner should be required to announce, publically, they are gay so that those who don’t agree with the gay life style can shop elsewhere.
@retire05,
“So what you are saying is that even small mom and pop cafes should be required to provide halal/kosher food on their menus because it would be discriminatory not to? All dress shops should be required to sell burkas? Muslim owned butcher shops should be required to sell pork. Black owned photographers/caterers should be required to service a KKK rally?”
If a devout Muslim/Jew/Seventh-Day-Adventist/etc. wants wants to eat only halal/kosher/vegan food they should patronize cafes that serve same. It’s OK if mom & pop choose to offer only pork at their cafe.
No one has the right to tell clothing store owners what kind of clothes they should stock. No clothing store has the right to refuse service to a patron because of the patron’s race/gender/sexual orientation, etc.
Black-owned photography studios and caterers must serve the KKK if the KKK chooses to patronize their businesses. This is America. It’s not OK to discriminate.
@Wordsmith:
Back in 1960, the young African-Americans who sat down at that lunch counter were true patriots, heroes. At the time they could be drafted into the Army and die on a foreign battlefield, but they couldn’t have a cup of joe in a “whites-only” restaurant. They could have patronized an African-American restaurant, but they wanted to make a point and do their part to end discrimination. Nowadays, blacks and whites sit side by side at most restaurants and few people care.
I am alarmed when reasonably thoughtful people, including yourself, are eager to defend and justify discrimination.
I am especially troubled when some defend their bigotry by invoking the name of Christ, their Lord and Savior. Would Christ defend discrimination? Christ was a Jew, a rabbi. His last religious ceremony was to celebrate Passover. Some clubs organized and operated by Christians refuse admission to Jews. Would Christ be eligible for membership?
@George Wells: George, you totally have a point…
I have to sit back and think about this.
You’re logic, and morals, are sound.
Damn…
By sell or serving to the public, you are inherently making a social pact to serve “the whole public”, regardless of your beliefs…or theirs. It’s not a “law”, per se, but I can see it as a implied social contract.
I agree. The bakers need to serve whoever, or get out of baking.
Come to think of it, refusing service to gays is probably on the same level of refusing to cater a wedding because you think the couple is too young, or they have tatoos…or nose rings, etc.
Thanks George. I have to say your comment knocked some sense into me, and I’m a little embarrassed to admit to the line I was holding.
It’s nice to know the Great Conversation is alive and well…
@Nathan Blue:
It takes a person with integrity to make a comment such as yours. Wish there was more of that on both sides of the aisle.
no its not the same, far from it,
life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, is taken different from every person , BUT ALL TAKE IT PERSONALY,
who live in AMERICA, AND EVERY AMERICANS, each have a personal mind to understand it,
the pursuit of happyness, and life and liberty, the FRAMERS understood it too, because they just gave those fundamental 3 words and let the free people decide for each the meaning of those words,
even that all use them differently, they end up being untouch by the diversity of the use of it, TO END UP WITH THE SAME RESULTS, IT’S INCREDIBLE ON MANY FACETS TO DECORTICATE THOSE 3 LAWS,
those FRAMERS HAD BEEN ENLIGHTEN BY A CREATOR WHICH THEY ASK TO BE, IN ORDER TO
GIVE AMERICA THOSE LAWS DIRECTLY COMING FROM THE ULTIMATE WISDOM,
WHICH THEY SEEK IN THEIR GUTS, IN THER MIND IN THEIR HEART IN GOD ,
THAT HAS SURVIVED CENTURY TAKING THE SHOCKS AND BUMP AND FOOT OF THOSE STEPPING ON IT, ONLY EVIL CAN TRY TO BREAK IT, BUT IS FAILING,
REFUSING TO BAKE A CAKE TO ONE, IS NOT THE SAME AS TO OTHER,THE LEVEL IS NOT ON THE SAME PLANE, IT’S THE WHY THE REFUSAL WHICH IS DIFFERENT IN THE SPIRITUAL DEBT OF THE REFUSAL, FOR THE BAKER NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN AN UNION OF TWO OF THE SAME GENDER, WHAT THE CAKE REVEAL TO THE BAKER, AT ONCE, THE VISION OF THE REST OF THE ACTIONS,
AS OPPOSE TO THE OTHER TOO YOUNG AND TATOO AND NOSE RING,WHICH ARE REPRESENTING SUPERFICIAL BEHAVIORS NOTHING IN THE DEEP SOUL, WHICH THE OTHER ARE TOUCHING JUST BY ASKING THE BAKER , HE ALREADY HAD THE IMAGE OF THE REST OF THE ACTIVITY,
LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIE OF HAPPYNESS WAS THE BAKER RIGHT TO PURSUE, HE WAS RIGHT TO REFUSE WHAT WAS GOING TO TAKE AWAY HIS HAPPYNESS REPLACE WITH TROUBLEING IMAGES
TO TAKE THE HAPPYNESS AWAY REPLACING IT WITH GUILT OF HAVING SAID YES, GUILT FOR LIFE AS A CHRISTIAN,
@Nathan Blue:
Thank you. It takes a noble soul to admit error, and yet we ALL do err. It also takes a measure of nobility to both win graciously and lose with dignity. I hope we are both blessed with sufficient amounts of each to see us through this turmoil.
While I am not sure how the current series of appeals at the district court level will be decided, or even if the SCOTUS will choose to resolve the issue of “marriage equality” at this particular stage (they ARE reticent to intervene prematurely) I have no doubt what the eventual outcome will be. The ideological foundation of our nation is so fundamentally opposed to discrimination that there can be only one resolution.
Back in the early 1970’s, when I asked Conservative Chief Justice Warren Burger how it was that the Justice Dept. tolerated the wide-spread persecution of homosexuals, he replied: “It will not always be so. (Gay) people will achieve equality in the fullness of time.” I was not familiar with the term “in the fullness of time,” so he explained that the court was reluctant to venture out too far ahead of society on social issues of this magnitude – much as Justice Ginsberg has recently articulated re: Roe v. Wade. If today’s poll results can be trusted, it is possible that we are approaching what the SCOTUS might consider a “fullness of time:”
59% of all Americans approve of gay marriage.
65% of all Americans think businesses should not be allowed to discriminate against gay customers, even for religious reasons.
Some trends behave mathematically like oscillations, reversing direction periodically (the length of women’s skirts would be an example.) But trends in civil rights do not tend to oscillate in this way. Rights once given are virtually impossible to take back. Additionally, it is the older demographic which is the most resistant to gay rights, and members of that group are being constantly replaced by a newer generation that is more comfortable with gay equality. I think that the current degree of enlightenment on the subject of gay Americans will make a “pendulum swing” backward for gay rights impossible, and for that I am humbly grateful.
@retire05 #24:
“Blacks were discriminated against because of their looks”
A patently absurd statement. Their “looks?” LOL! Perhaps in-so-far as discrimination is largely a function of singling out differences and attempting to harm or eliminate them – particularly when one feels threatened by those differences (the “unknown”) – I suppose you could get sloppy and lump all such differences under the “looks” label, but that would be grossly inaccurate. Men with high-pitched voices are discriminated against (as are women with “husky” voices)… is that a “look?”
“Are you saying that you can tell a person is gay just by looking at them because I damn sure can tell a person is black just by looking at them.”
You keep bleating this question as if repetition will give it some relevance, but it doesn’t. Discrimination based on religion is not tolerated, but you can no more identify a person’s religion than you can identify their sexual orientation from their looks. “Looks” are irrelevant. And your continuing obsession with “Gaydar” has no context at all in the granting of protections from discrimination.
“…how would the ER doctor know your religion, your politics or your sexual preferences? Do you think people volunteer that information when they are seeking ER treatment?”
The last time I went into an emergency room, my HUSBAND accompanied me, and when the doctor asked who he was, I VOLUNTEERED THAT INFORMATION. Do you honestly think that I am alone in this experience???? And whether the fact of the matter is volunteered or simply guessed, IT DOESN’T MATTER! The Doctor has no right to withhold services in either case.
“Does the Constitution state that my religious rights end at the store front door? No, it doesn’t. But on the flip side, using your standards the gay store owner should be required to announce, publically, they are gay so that those who don’t agree with the gay life style can shop elsewhere.”
This is fragmented to the point that I can’t even guess at its logic structure, so there is nothing to answer. If a third party would like to clarify what Retire is getting at here, be my guest.
@George Wells:
We already have marriage “equality”. A straight man is allowed to marry a straight woman. A gay man can also marry a gay woman. Marriage “equality” is a misnomer.
Still waiting on you to answer this question:
Are you saying that you can tell a person is gay just by looking at them because I damn sure can tell a person is black just by looking at them?
You want to claim that your perceived discrimination against gays, like you, is like discrimination was against blacks then there must be a way to tell a person is gay just by looking at them like you can tell a person is black just by looking at them.
Then you make the a claim you can’t prove about a conversation between yourself and Chief Justice Warren Burger, leading the reader to believe that Burger would, in fact, support gay marriage.
But it seems that Burger’s own words contradict your claims about him:
Burger was opposed to gay rights as he wrote a famous concurring opinion in the Court’s 1986 decision upholding a Georgia law criminalizing sodomy (Bowers v. Hardwick), in which Burger purported to marshal historical evidence that laws criminalizing homosexuality were of ancient vintage. Chief Justice Burger pointed out that the famous legal author William Blackstone wrote that sodomy was a “‘crime against nature’… of ‘deeper malignity than rape’, a heinous act ‘the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature’ and ‘a crime not fit to be named'”.[11]
In fact, in Bowers v. Hardwick, Justice Burger opined:
The majority opinion, written by Justice Byron White, argued that the Constitution did not confer “a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy.”[1] A concurring opinion by Chief Justice Warren E. Burger cited the “ancient roots” of prohibitions against homosexual sex, quoting William Blackstone’s description of homosexual sex as an “infamous crime against nature”, worse than rape, and “a crime not fit to be named.” Burger concluded: “To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.”[2]
The problem with you activists, George Wells, is that so often you are proven to be just downright dishonest. To insinuate that Chief Justice Burger would be sympathetic to homosexuals is a flat out lie.
You are wrong. The harder gays push, to normalize what is not normal, and to force acceptance instead of tolerance, eventually the push back will come. And when it does, gays will lose everything they are gained. The more you attack Christianity, and gays do attack Christianity whether you want to admit it or not, eventually Christians will get tired of being pushed and will fight back.
But you and I have had this round before. You can here to support your buddy that used to post here, until he got caught slamming “breeders” on his own website and decided to leave.
Here’s a tip for you gays; you don’t want to be discriminated against because you’re queer, then don’t flaunt your sexuality and make it an issue. Leave it where you originally claimed you wanted it to be, in the privacy of your own home. It is just that simple. But even same sex marriage will not be enough. Not until you can be declared a privileged group and can push the rest of the nation around with abandon. Even then, for those who subscribe the Marxist ideology of Antonio Gramsci, there is nothing that will ever be enough.
ROCKYBUTTE
hi,
you sound like you mix the word liberty with the word ” no”
and forget the word liberty IS to say “no” I refuse
to bake that cake, IF I JUDGE THAT I DON’T WANT TO,
MY JUDGEMENT IS FREE ALSO, that is my will, my wish,
which are coming from my being,
that is my freedom and my liberty which i protect,
BUT I am not infringing in your liberty and your freedom to go elsewhere, at the pursuit of your happyness
to find the cake you want,
you and i are still both free and we have our liberty unchanged by my refusal to bake your cake the way you want.
AND IT’S NOT AN EXCUSE TO YELL, FOR ALL THE COUNTRY TO HEAR, I AM OUTRAGE,
GET ME A JUDGE I PROTEST,
MY RIGHTS HAVE BEEN AGGRESSED,
BYE
@Nathan Blue #17:
“The crux of this issue is that LGBTQIs have been successfully identified as a “class” of people as distinct as race or sex. Science, however, does not provide enough evidence to suggest this.” (and) “Until you can prove sexuality is some kind (of) immutable genetic trait (like race or gender) that a person can’t change or develop differently depending on external and internal factors, it’s not rational to treat it as a new “class” of humanity.
First, nobody I know of is suggesting that there is anything “new” about homosexuality. Homosexuals have been around for as long as humanity has existed, and they have been persecuted as a “class” at least intermittently for as long as one man has sought to dominate and/or oppress another.
Secondly, (and I think that I have cleared this up elsewhere, but it deserves repetition) this notion that class distinctions in some way require an irrefutable and demonstrable characteristic of immutability in order that they be afforded legitimate protection is not born out by the very Constitutional language from which these protections obtain. What “immutable” (genetic or otherwise) characteristic guarantees your or my religious freedom? As I asked Retire05, what difference does it make whether “looks” are what the majority is afraid of, as opposed to “sounds,” or even “ideas.” The Supreme Court has repeatedly asked “what compelling state interest warrants the retraction of a constitutionally guaranteed right as fundamental as equal protection?” and their answer increasingly has been “There are none.” A study of the cases presently working their way through the courts will find not a single attempt to argue the absence of “immutable” traits as a defense against gay rights litigation. Don’t be fooled by Retire05’s implication to the contrary – the law makes no distinction in the granting of protections against discrimination based upon the presence or absence of “looks.”
@George Wells: Re: #22
Well put, George!
Thank you, Tom.
George Wells
I must say to your word “look” is not accuate,
it’s the word “BEHAVIOR” which reveal the GAI PERSON,
and has prevented tha group to advance the cause,
of course you cannot change the behavior of those who exibit such,
but they are so offending that the whole group is thought as them,
with their public exibition way enhance to show who they are,
and they are offending other, and the other who are not doing it,
are the one to take the bad reaction, from the community
as in every thing, the perception is generalize to those who are using discretion,
in doing their sexual preference, in their own home away from the judgment of other,
so the other are the one who sink the normality you want so much to have, by their exibition of perversion, for all to see, including the mother with her children, afraid that her child see it,
which he or they see it before the mother,
so you canot accuse society for not being accepted, but only accuse those in your own group,
exibiting their GAI FACT using any way to let people know of their difference,
as glorifying it, as being proud of being different, they are the source of your problem with the other,
they are the one for you to educate, and not the society non GAI, who are busy with their own lives,
NOT paying attention to the GAI MOVEMENT. UNTIL THEY
ARE CONFRONTED BY ONE WHO IS TELLING ALL THEY NEED TO KNOW BY EXIBITING THEIR BEHAVIOR WHICH IS A TELL ALL,
BYE
@ILOVEBEESWARZONE:
You will hopefully recall that OUR constitution protects free speech. Even when some people are offended by it, expressions of individuality, when within lawful limits, are tolerated. I regret the discomfort that is sometimes caused by those in the gay community who believe that our rights are advanced more quickly by loud and outrageous demonstration, but the argument can be made that for all those years when gay folk stayed quietly “in the closet,” nothing got done. There was NO progress in the gay rights direction until the Stonewall Riots. Now, riots are not my first choice for social activism, but it is difficult not to recognize that particular event as pivotal.
Think back to our American Revolution. We talked and talked, complained and cried. But things only started to happen when we BROKE THE LAW. We dumped a lot of tea into Boston Harbor, and our lawful discussion of Britain’s dominance went downhill from there. So you should understand that “misbehavior” has its place in achieving social change.
@rockybutte:
And a number of those blacks will find the issue of same sex marriage (specifically this) to the civil rights struggle of the 60s flawed:
I think this USA Today article makes a fair and balanced point of view:
It depends on perception and how we define the arguments.
I think both sides have great points to argue. I just wish they could do so respectfully without the venom and invectives of maligning a difference in opinion.
As I said earlier, I won’t lose sleep at night should same sex marriage become an accepted norm. I have no problems with gay couples, wish them well, be good parents, etc. But what is the institution of marriage? How should it be defined? And are definitions malleable to spare hurt feelings? How do we define terms like “mom” and “dad”? Are they gender specific? Or malleable based upon whether a person identifies himself (or herself) as a “dad” or a “mom”? Is it up to the individual?
I thought Elton John had the healthier outlook prior to him being swept into buying into the gay movement’s push for government endorsement of same-sex marriage.
Men and women together have what’s called “marriage”. Gays have “civil unions”. Legally, both should be essentially the same thing with same rights. No matter what kind of wishful thinking however, there is a difference when it comes to producing children. This isn’t to say that a gay couple can’t be wonderful and even better parents than hetero couples. By the same token, I really don’t care if gays call it “marriage”, either. What irks me, is this narcissistic need to compare it to some great civil rights struggle and “woe is us” sense of persecution. Real persecution against gays- look elsewhere (like in the Middle East).
I don’t care a wit about a sports player’s sexual orientation. Why is it “brave” to “come out of the closet” and create media hoopla and draw attention to one’s sexual orientation? In today’s society, it seems like it takes more courage for those who are opposed to gay marriage or even against homosexuality period, to speak up about their opinions. Why? Because they will quickly be trounced and condemned for bigotry and homophobia. They are the ones “in the closet”, having to hide how they really feel, because it isn’t “politically correct” or socially acceptable to speak out against same sex marriage or express religious belief about the issue. Chris Clemons? Praised to high heaven and called a hero. He’s not being brave. Phil Robertson expressing an opinion in an interview? He’s seen as hateful, maligned and condemned, and almost loses his show.
I can’t speak for Christ. Pat Robertson expressed love for homosexuals even as he disagreed with homosexual behavior (homosexuality sinful like Robertson’s past sin of drinking), as he understands it from his reading of the Bible.
In regards to Jews, most Christians I know are strong supporters of the state of Israel.
@Wordsmith #39:
” In today’s society, it seems like it takes more courage for those who are opposed to gay marriage or even against homosexuality period, to speak up about their opinions. Why? Because they will quickly be trounced and condemned for bigotry and homophobia. They are the ones “in the closet”, having to hide how they really feel, because it isn’t “politically correct” or socially acceptable to speak out against same sex marriage or express religious belief about the issue.”
Very interesting observation. I could say that “turn-around” is fair play, but that would be ungracious. I WILL assume that you consider homosexuals who were “out” back when gays were routinely persecuted to be even MORE courageous than the folks you laud for their current vocal disapproval of gay rights – “MORE” because the legal penalties gays suffered in the past far outweigedh the polite consternation being voiced toward equality opponents today.
After all of this has been sifted and assimilated, there will be a “normalization.” Having a gay married couple in the neighborhood won’t incite outrage, just as having a black family move into that same neighborhood once would have. Folks at work are no longer scandalized by an interracial couple, and the same will accrue for gay couples. This is the normalization I am referring to. Not all minds will be changed. Here in Virginia, there are still plenty of folks who not-so-secretly pine for a return of the Confederacy, and there will be some Christians (not just in Uganda) who will remain convinced that all gay people will – and should – burn in Hell. But calmer days will come.
@George Wells:
Absolutely.
@Wordsmith:
This discussion deals mainly with whether business owners have the right to discriminate against patrons because of their sexual orientation. You referenced Rev. Bill Owens, religious liaison for NOM (National Organization for Marriage), who gained notoriety by criticizing Obama for his position in support of same-sex marriage. Rev. Owens has been an outspoken supporter of Putin’s repressive anti-gay laws in Russia. I imagine he would be in support of Uganda’s anti-gay laws as well. Although devout African-American Christians are often opposed to homosexuality, I don’t think that Rev. Owens’ extreme views represent more than a small minority of the African-American community.
The USA Today article shines little light on the discussion at hand, although it contains points to be considered in other forums.
Last year a lesbian couple in Portland, Oregon got into a cab while they were a little tipsy. They wound up smooching in the back seat. The driver started criticizing them for their homosexuality. He stopped the car on I-84 and the women got out, miles from their home, with high-speed traffic whizzing past. They scaled an embankment to safety. The driver has lost his cab license and was suspended by the cab company even though he was an independent contractor. Would he have kicked out a heterosexual couple? Probably not, although he may have harbored thoughts about the impropriety of public displays of affection.
Did he have the right to refuse service to two lesbians because of their overt gayness? Following the thread of this forum’s discussion, I would conclude that the answer by most conservatives would be in the affirmative. He offered other reasons why he abandoned them, by the way, but there was no substantial evidence to support his allegations.
Would Dick Cheney support discrimination against his lesbian daughter and her partner? Let’s here it from the man himself: “With the respect to the question of relationships, my general view is freedom means freedom for everyone,” . Dick would be none too pleased with a baker that refused service to Mary and her partner, Heather.
If both of Dick’s daughters were heterosexual, Dick would probably never have come to grips with his feelings about this issue. Good for him that he has.
Regarding the Jewish issue, the death of 6,000,000 Jews at the hands of Christians serves as a stark warning against letting discrimination get out of hand. Stop discrimination in the bud and it will never germinate.
@George Wells: You know, that’s another thing I haven’t thought about enought. The issue wasn’t that gays sought to be a “class”, they would separated by the culture at large and the reality or perception of class is inevitable. My complaint is that the so called “gay agenda” today is so pervasive, so naive, that I wish we had a better framework…societal…to build from.
The other concern is that you can conceivably become “gay” at any time or place in your life. I’m not refuting what you’ve said in previous posts: that most gays are indeed “born like that”. I have no doubt. I’m only saying that I’ve run into young people who I feel are trying on a fad or finding a group to fit into (funny to say that, right?).
So it stops being about protecting people’s sexuality and orientation, and is now about a fabricated class that anyone can join if they’d like. I speak of another pendulum, swinging too far in the other direction (I hear you about the older folks.) I think that’s disrespectful to gays.
And for what it’s worth, I don’t feel that I’ve “erred” precisely–I just think there are too many voices out there trying to tell me what to think (Hollywood, trad-marriage crowd, etc), and I’m not buying anything. I’ll forge my own opinions.
But I thank you for the wisdom. I’m firmly against the cultural infestation from the left and hollywood (and that’s really what you’re hearing from me), but I know of no Jesus that would say “no” to anyone, for any reason (and I am a devout Christian). A lot of fear, on both sides.
So I guess I’m in the middle, once again.
@Nathan Blue:
Per your remarks concerning some individuals “trying on” homosexuality, I would suggest again that you consider the case of religion. Some folks try on one religion, then another, and so on, while others never once waver in their faith. The same is true regarding sexuality. Certainly there are many youth who have not thoroughly explored their own sexuality enough to appreciate exactly “who” they are, and some will continue to vacillate on the subject throughout their adult lives. Not every person is wired for certainty, either with respects to faith or to sexual orientation. Yet the provisions for civil rights make no distinction regarding the… degree… of commitment one has toward their faith or their orientation. The law takes at face value any declarations made at the point in time that they were made, and this is universal in contract law. Neither a person’s first amendment rights (to freedom of religion) nor their fourteenth amendment rights (to equal protection under the law) are dependent upon the degree to which a person is certain of “who” they are. I think that you will agree that this is a good thing, given your position being “in the middle once again.”
@George Wells: While I see the analogy, and appreciate the potential it offers for perspective, I can’t compare religion and sexuality in a serious way (though I agree that someones purported faith is used to gain and justify all kinds of things).
Man/woman marriage is socially made institution — it is not a biological imperative. That men and men, or woman and woman, have had sex together or been together in a relationship is as old as humanity. The ancients, and most cultures up until now, rejected this arrangement as a cultural norm due the effects on a functional society. They made conscious choices on how society was arranged, for better or worse.
If your telling me that sexuality is mutable, and people will vacillate through life, that’s nothing new. Civilization formed counter to this kind of chaos. I’m operating under the premise that people are “gay” and can’t help it. If this is more of a leaning/choice and we’re just talking about what attracts someone and what their inclinations should be, than no — I’m not on the same page as you.
You’re starting to lose me, George. Faith is an action, but sexuality is an urge, and we choose how we deal with it. We’re now changing our society to normalize a deviation in social behavior that is contrary to most inclinations, and also against social constructs that have held up for millenia in opposition to the very nebulous sexuality traits you just brought up.
If being gay is merely sexualizing a person’s lack of identity or another psychosis, yeah, I’m not on your side. We’re all screwed up somehow. So what?
The relativity posed between faith and sex is just the sort of cultural strike I’m against. Sure, people have all kinds of inclinations: sexual, violent, etc. If everything is “allowed”, then we’re back to being animals, not men (and women).
I naturally would like to have sex with lots of women, or perhaps be “married” to three or four. Does that give me a certain status amongst the law or people? Just wanting to get laid by a dude, or have a close friendship with sex from a dude, doesn’t make someone special or even different.
Marriage was made against people’s urges, against what they would have like to happen from a pleasure standpoint. Marrying for love is a new thing.
I’m for civil unions: people — two or more — should be able to join their lives together legally. Don’t care if they have sex, love each other…none of my business.
The gay marriage issue isn’t about equality, it’s about normalizing the abnormal. It’s about retrofitting society to include a behavior that had previously been rejected. I think I’ll “come out” and tell my wife I want to have frivolous sex with chics, but still be married to her. If she says no, I think I’ll sue and start a lobby.
Next up, polygamists. Coming to a town near you.
Society is being deconstructed, and anything goes. That’s what concerns people. It’s the lack of intentionality. So a man likes guys, and sees that biology and society are not set up to allow that. So they a) deal with it by whatever means they see fit, or b) force the rest of society to normalize their dysfunction, for their own comfort.
My concern is that gay marriage is like Little People demanding that we tear down all the buildings on the planet and rebuild them to LP specifications. LGBTQI is a dysfunction, like Downs Syndrome or any other biological/psychological dysfunction. We should not discriminate and make every effort to assist these people, but forming society around one type of dysfunction is absurd.
Problem is, I can’t “tell” is someone is gay. Gay is an action, not an orientation. Faith is also an act, and one has always been part of a vibrant and growing society. It’s not a fringe percentage: it’s ideology. the gay marriage/rights issue is about ideology, not anything else.
@Nathan Blue:
It seems to me the whole issue comes down to differing, competing somewhat incompatible personal beliefs, for what that is at it’s base what both sides of the argument are trying to protect. Leftist are often (and sometimes over dramatically) offended when someone speaks out about their personal religious beliefs, declaring that a religiously faithful person has no right to subject the leftist to such proselytizing. Yet, these same individuals have no problem with their leftist agenda items, including homosexuality being forced upon those who believe differently. Worse yet, their political agenda items are increasingly proselytized in public schools.
That is why I think it is wrong of either side to force someone else to support systems of belief that they are opposed to. And why I think that the “cake” case should have been tossed out, as how can a court order one complainant’s personal belief system to be more important than the other person’s?
I find this post so very full of goodies t read,
and the opinons came from the PEOPLE, NOT THE GOVERNMENT,
THEIR IS MORE SMART COMMENTS HERE THAN THE LEADER CAN COMME OUT WITH,
IT REMIND US THAT PEOPLE CAN FIX THEIR PROBLEMS WITHOUT HAVING THE GOVERMENT
TAKE MONEY FROM THEIR POCKET TO PAY THEIR LAWYERS
@Nathan Blue #45:
Wow, too much to deal with all at once. I’m going to work on this in stages. This is the first installment:
“You’re starting to lose me, George. Faith is an action, but sexuality is an urge, and we choose how we deal with it. We’re now changing our society to normalize a deviation in social behavior that is contrary to most inclinations, and also against social constructs that have held up for millenia in opposition to the very nebulous sexuality traits you just brought up.”
I am neither “winning you” nor “losing you.” I am telling you the truth as I understand it – what you do with it is your prerogative.
I have a niece who announced at her sister’s (heterosexual) wedding that she was a lesbian. Bit of a shock to the family. She was living with a “friend” out in Humboldt, California… but six months later, she was married to a man who she later divorced because he turned out to be an incorrigible cross-dresser. She is an example of a “fence-sitter,” I was not. While I personally understood by my sixth birthday that I was quite different from other boys, it wasn’t until I developed sexually that I DISCOVERED that I was “homosexual.” (At six years of age, since I wasn’t sexually mature OR active, I wasn’t “homosexual,” but that WAS my orientation) . I never wavered in my “orientation” and am convinced that I was destined from birth to be exactly this way, but I recognize that for some people (like my niece), this is not the case.
Next statement: “Faith is an action…etc.”
No, it is not. Faith is a state of mind upon which a person may or may not choose to “act.” I have a deep and abiding faith that informs my world view on a daily basis, but I NEVER go to a church to share my faith with others or to have it reinforced by the resident motivational speaker. No one would ever guess my faith from looking at me. And sexuality is far more complex than a simple “urge.”
My effort to get you to consider sexual orientation and religion in the same way comes directly from Retire05’s insistence that for a class of people to deserve constitutional protections, that class must be visually recognizable. She has argued that “looks” are a necessary feature of a legitimate class deserving protection, and she makes the point that gay people have no obvious, innate trait (like black people have with their skin color) which would qualify them as a protectable class. I have pointed out that Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects people from discrimination based on race (and color)(frequently visually recognizable), gender (usually visually recognizable), national origin (recognizable by speech characteristics more often than by looks) or religion (usually NOT discernable). Clearly, the presence or absence of visually identifiable features (looks) is not a necessary factor in establishing civil rights. It is in this way that sexual orientation (not presently protected by an act of Congress) is similar to religion. Unless a person chooses to dress in an identifiable way, neither their religion nor their sexual orientation is apparent upon visual inspection. THIS is all I meant. Surely I am not losing you in this?
“Problem is, I can’t “tell” is someone is gay.”
Why is this a problem? Can you look at a Baptist and distinguish him from the atheist standing next to him? Are you willing to throw away your First Amendment freedom of religion because you can’t conveniently pick out the Catholics in a crowd?
This is enough for this installment.
@Nathan Blue #45:
Rather than continue to dissect your lengthy post, Let me approach the question of gay rights from a different direction:
Throughout most of history and in most lands, homosexuality was treated as a criminal behavior. Possibly it was the associated loss of breeding stock that threatened small tribes to whom every potential warrior was a desperately needed asset, or perhaps it was feared that the homosexuality was contagious and that if not eradicated, extinction would follow. In any event, homosexuality was viewed as being so detrimental to society at large that it had to be punished severely. The ancient proscriptions against homosexuality were included in Old Testament verse, and thanks to our Christian heritage, the early laws of the United States continued to support and encourage the persecution of homosexuals.
Presently, well, things have changed. The tribes are now huge, and not everyone’s contribution to the gene pool is needed. Over-population is much more of a threat than is failure to procreate. And by now we understand that homosexuality is not contagious. In fact none of the historic objections to homosexuality have a rational basis in the context of modern society. We do NOT require heterosexual couples to make children. We do not require couples who make children to get married. We DO allow couples who are beyond reproductive age to marry. Some of THOSE marriages are for love, while others are simply for convenience. We make no distinction between the two. If a marriage may be granted to an elderly couple for either love or convenience alone, how would a marriage between two gay people produce a different result, and why should the latter be forbidden? “Equal protection” suggests strongly that if one is allowed, so should the other.
While giving the right to marry to gay people DOES represent an extension of constitutional rights beyond what the framers of the Constitution envisioned, it is still well within the spirit of the Constitution’s provisions of equal protection. In fact, Justice Scalia (arguably the MOST conservative SCOTUS justice) has pointed out repeatedly that once gay sex was decriminalized, there remains no justification for withholding from gays the right to marry. He is correct.
Society is dynamic, not static. I do not believe that when we stopped stoning flip children and adulterers (Deuteronomy 22 : 18-24) (a dynamic change) or when we ended slavery (often supported in the Biblical text)(another dynamic change) that these changes constitute a “deconstruction” of traditional society. They were instead useful and necessary improvements made on a template that does need to be modernized from time to time. This is every bit the case with gay rights.
@George Wells:
Liar.
Point out, by quoting me verbatim, where I said that ” “looks” are a necessary feature of a legitimate class deserving protection”. I never wrote those words, and you damn well know it. But you are not above lying about what I said to push your agenda.
What I have said, repeatedly, is that the gay movement cannot be considered the same as the equal rights movement of black Americans who were discriminated against simply because of the color of their skin.
You are a most dishonest person, George. But that was established here long ago.