All Things LGBTQ+ (2 Viewers)

[Farb]

Didn't really see a place for this so I thought I would start a thread about all things LGBTQ since this is a pretty hot topic in our culture right now

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/06/17/sup...y-that-refuses-to-work-with-lgbt-couples.html

• The Supreme Court on Thursday delivered a unanimous defeat to LGBT couples in a high-profile case over whether Philadelphia could refuse to contract with a Roman Catholic adoption agency that says its religious beliefs prevent it from working with same-sex foster parents.
• Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in an opinion for a majority of the court that Philadelphia violated the First Amendment by refusing to contract with Catholic Social Services once it learned that the organization would not certify same-sex couples for adoption.

I will admit, I was hopeful for this decision by the SCOTUS but I was surprised by the unanimous decision.

While I don't think there is anything wrong, per se, with same sex couples adopting and raising children (I actually think it is a good thing as it not an abortion) but I also did not want to see the state force a religious institution to bend to a societal norm.

 

[bird]

Is the question not, does the state have the authority to compel a person to use his/her talents to be a part of a ceremony that is against their moral principles? Obviously, I say no.
Would you consider having your 'art' as a center piece during a ceremony different from saying eating lunch in restaurant or going into a store and buying some shoes?
Is sexual orientation to be considered a characteristic or a decision? There are several that can feel a compulsion for something and not partake. That decision could be sex with a woman or sex with a man, drugs, murder ect..

On another slippery slope that I think will be coming, what about polyonomy? How is the state now defining marriage now?

The state? Religion? Imo, actions regarding social relations between consenting adults is no one’s business but their own. That being said the state has compelling reasons to legitimize marriage including things like healthcare directives, directives regarding assets and so on. Included is protection of minors and those who cannot make competent decisions. The state known as the United States of America has a long history drawn from origins in Europe. This includes religion intertwined with political economy. This is unsurprising. Religion is a means used by power holders and those who wish to hold power to exercise social control, social control that they want. This has continued throughout the existence since before this country was a country. The social shifts regarding consenting adults marrying are viewed with suspicion and fear by those who wish to impose those religious views on society utilizing the imprimatur of deity. Polygamy, polyandry? I don’t want to participate. Others might.

What do you fear? What do you really fear?

 

[MT15]

Oh, and the CO shooter was charged with hate crimes for targeting the gay bar.

 

[MT15]

And there’s this too:

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

Nope, I agree with what you said. I would also add if you want to marry a gay person, dont expect to get married in a church that doesn't support gay marriage. There are plenty that do. Pretty simple too.

if I can "quote" you some verses that says that black people are a curse on mankind and interracial marriage is a sin, should I be allowed to refuse them to attend my church or refuse marrying an interracial couple? because my aunt used to show me them all the time when I was a kid. when I stayed with them during the summer and went to church with her, my uncle and my grandmother, black people weren't allowed in that church (this was mid 80s not the 60s) . the Bible will tell you what you want it to, and that only.
but honestly, I am not sure why a same sex couple would want to be married by someone who doesn't want to marry them.
but if Iremember correctly, part of this bill protects the churches from being forced to do this, which is why so many Republicans voted to pass it. this crying lady is just trying to force her personal beliefs on others. she talks about the true meaning of marriage, then why isn't she trying to pass a bill to ban divorces?

 

[superchuck500]

Is the question not, does the state have the authority to compel a person to use his/her talents to be a part of a ceremony that is against their moral principles? Obviously, I say no.
Would you consider having your 'art' as a center piece during a ceremony different from saying eating lunch in restaurant or going into a store and buying some shoes?
Is sexual orientation to be considered a characteristic or a decision? There are several that can feel a compulsion for something and not partake. That decision could be sex with a woman or sex with a man, drugs, murder ect..

On another slippery slope that I think will be coming, what about polyonomy? How is the state now defining marriage now?

The state isn't compelling anything other than participation in the marketplace according to the state's public accommodations law. If a business is open to the public, it has to be open to the public and cannot arbitrarily discriminate against protected classes. This isn't a difficult concept. And religion doesn't save the business - it was the same exact argument businesses (especially hotels) made to attempt to avoid serving interracial couples.

While making a cake involves some skill or even "artistry" the process of selling a cake to a customer is the transaction. The business has no interest in what ceremony the cake is used in, no different than the designer of the stem-ware that is being used for drinks. Just because a business's product involves creative design isn't an exclusion to application of public accommodation laws. I would fully agree that the cake maker retains artistic discretion about the design no different than any other customer and these things can be case by case - but if the cake maker will make a cake with "Brian and Mary" on it but won't make it with "Brian and Mark" that's an arbitrary refusal to serve a protected class.

And would you stop with the damn slippery slope arguments? It's cartoonish and totally devoid of merit - it's nothing more than a baseless hypothetical advancing nothing. If you want to know how states are defining marriage, nothing has changed: marriage is a union between two people subject to certain rules (e.g. age) and conferring certain results (e.g. community property, agency, etc.). The only thing that has changed is that the law now applies equal protection concepts to hold that a state may not restrict the availability of legal marriage on the basis of gender.

That's it. That's all that's happened. Nothing more.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

Farb is getting inundated with quote replies so I'll just add to the cacophony. Is being gay a characteristic or choice? If you want to argue it's a choice I'd argue religion is more of a choice. Yet this country goes out of its way to enshrine it as a core part of a person's identity. Being gay is generally far less malleable than religious identity which people can -- and have -- changed at the drop of a hat. Never mind the fact that the former is something that observably exists in reality while the latter is based on things that have no more proof of existence than anything you'd find in a Harry Potter novel.

 

[Farb]

You didn't deal with my statement at all. You tried to sub in something bawl, bawl, bawl, else.

Next!

Ok, what exactly was your question?

 

[Farb]

Are you saying the desire/decision to partake in a same sex physical relationship is comparable to a compulsion/decision to take street drugs or commit murder?

Farb, "Are you gay?"

Whoever, "yes".

Farb, "Just say no."

No, but not your fault, I might not have expressed it correctly.

People can act gay that are not gay. Gay people can act not gay and some actually marry a woman and have children. A person can not act a different skin color, for example Rachel Dolezal.

 

[Farb]

No. Your reading comprehension is terrible. They need to do some testing and monitoring of calcium levels. The side effect doesn’t have anything to do with anything psychological. It’s a biological side effect that can be dealt with if they watch for it and deal with it.

They have studies. They are constantly doing studies. You can look them up.

What causes the problem that monitoring is needed? Is that a natural problem or caused by the hormone replacement theory drugs.

 

[MT15]

What causes the problem that monitoring is needed? Is that a natural problem or caused by the hormone replacement theory drugs.

It’s a side effect. Nobody is denying that.

 

[Farb]

And there’s this too:

crazy! Imagine a politician doing illegal stuff to make more money? Crazy times we live in.

 

[Farb]

The state isn't compelling anything other than participation in the marketplace according to the state's public accommodations law. If a business is open to the public, it has to be open to the public and cannot arbitrarily discriminate against protected classes. This isn't a difficult concept. And religion doesn't save the business - it was the same exact argument businesses (especially hotels) made to attempt to avoid serving interracial couples.

While making a cake involves some skill or even "artistry" the process of selling a cake to a customer is the transaction. The business has no interest in what ceremony the cake is used in, no different than the designer of the stem-ware that is being used for drinks. Just because a business's product involves creative design isn't an exclusion to application of public accommodation laws. I would fully agree that the cake maker retains artistic discretion about the design no different than any other customer and these things can be case by case - but if the cake maker will make a cake with "Brian and Mary" on it but won't make it with "Brian and Mark" that's an arbitrary refusal to serve a protected class.

And would you stop with the damn slippery slope arguments? It's cartoonish and totally devoid of merit - it's nothing more than a baseless hypothetical advancing nothing. If you want to know how states are defining marriage, nothing has changed: marriage is a union between two people subject to certain rules (e.g. age) and conferring certain results (e.g. community property, agency, etc.). The only thing that has changed is that the law now applies equal protection concepts to hold that a state may not restrict the availability of legal marriage on the basis of gender.

That's it. That's all that's happened. Nothing more.

Would you consider a wedding to be a celebration? I would.
While the stemware or plates at the celebration/wedding are probably more than not the property of the caterer and only rented for the marriage, the wedding cake is by most measures one of the main pillars of the celebration. For example, the couple typically uses a left over tier for their anniversary do they not? So the cake itself is front and center of the celebration.
Would a painter that owns a studio also be compelled to paint a wedding portrait? By the all states accommodation laws, you would say yes. I personally think the whole notion of the state forcing anyone to do anything in a free market is a drastic over reach but at the same time I can see why it was done. The reason still created bad law. The law now is going to be determined by a wavy line that will force the judiciary or our legislature to define 'art'. My thinking is if a business wants to not provide service to a midgets, then in a free market, a new business will open next door and provide that service to midgets and will force the closure of the business is that is participating in discrimination. I don't' think you can legislate morality but I know most lawyers don't agree.

As for slippery slopes, no. I think they are valid and you labeling them as cartoonish is totally within your rights. I would just caution about dismissing something as if you alone are the guardian of what is right and wrong.
Speaking of slippery slopes, what would be your opinion if a couple came to a Jewish baker for a wedding cake for a Nazi themed wedding (that was used recently on this board with not 'stop using slippery slope arguments' from you, but I onward and upward. What about a Paula Deen plantation wedding theme for a black baker. Or a member of the KKK wanting a family portrait done with robes and all but asked/demanded a black painter to do it. According to your interpretation of the law, they would be compelled by the state to do it. Correct? If you don't think that slippery slope will happen, I think you underestimate the stupid of this country, only have to look at how this controversy came to be to see that.

 

[Farb]

Farb is getting inundated with quote replies so I'll just add to the cacophony. Is being gay a characteristic or choice? If you want to argue it's a choice I'd argue religion is more of a choice. Yet this country goes out of its way to enshrine it as a core part of a person's identity. Being gay is generally far less malleable than religious identity which people can -- and have -- changed at the drop of a hat. Never mind the fact that the former is something that observably exists in reality while the latter is based on things that have no more proof of existence than anything you'd find in a Harry Potter novel.

Yes, religion is a choice. No one is this country is forced to celebrate a religion, are they? I have not seen press gangs forcing the masses to attend mass.

 

[superchuck500]

Would you consider a wedding to be a celebration? I would.
While the stemware or plates at the celebration/wedding are probably more than not the property of the caterer and only rented for the marriage, the wedding cake is by most measures one of the main pillars of the celebration. For example, the couple typically uses a left over tier for their anniversary do they not? So the cake itself is front and center of the celebration.
Would a painter that owns a studio also be compelled to paint a wedding portrait? By the all states accommodation laws, you would say yes. I personally think the whole notion of the state forcing anyone to do anything in a free market is a drastic over reach but at the same time I can see why it was done. The reason still created bad law. The law now is going to be determined by a wavy line that will force the judiciary or our legislature to define 'art'. My thinking is if a business wants to not provide service to a midgets, then in a free market, a new business will open next door and provide that service to midgets and will force the closure of the business is that is participating in discrimination. I don't' think you can legislate morality but I know most lawyers don't agree.

As for slippery slopes, no. I think they are valid and you labeling them as cartoonish is totally within your rights. I would just caution about dismissing something as if you alone are the guardian of what is right and wrong.
Speaking of slippery slopes, what would be your opinion if a couple came to a Jewish baker for a wedding cake for a Nazi themed wedding (that was used recently on this board with not 'stop using slippery slope arguments' from you, but I onward and upward. What about a Paula Deen plantation wedding theme for a black baker. Or a member of the KKK wanting a family portrait done with robes and all but asked/demanded a black painter to do it. According to your interpretation of the law, they would be compelled by the state to do it. Correct? If you don't think that slippery slope will happen, I think you underestimate the stupid of this country, only have to look at how this controversy came to be to see that.

No - they wouldn’t be compelled to do it because Nazis and KKK members aren’t protected classes. This isn’t hard - you’re making it hard on purpose because you think businesses should be able to choose not to serve black people. Or Asian people. Or Jewish people. Or (in some states) gay people.

You can believe all of those things and do whatever it is you do in your church but in civil society, we don’t accept that. Because we have seen that it sucks.

If a painter wants to open a business to the public for hire, then the painter can’t choose to refuse to serve protected classes. It’s that freakin simple dude.

It doesn’t matter what purpose the business serves.

 

[CoolBrees]

If you own a business in this country, you are the beneficiary of the services that society provides, the massive logistical systems, which you cannot provide yourself - roads, rail, ports, on the larges scale and water, power, sewer, on the local scale for example.

Society provides those for the cost of your taxes, but otherwise free*.

That asterisk is indeed intentional. You agree that you will operate your business in accordance with the rules that the government says apply to you - whether that is how much effluent you can put down the drain or how much cargo you are allowed to store or how much and to who you sell overseas and so forth.

But the most basic is you will follow the law. And the law says there are groups of people in this country that are specifically protected.

You know, because people were beating and killing them for who they were.

So now? You want to open a tech bro Nazi Catholic bakery? Sweet! Can’t wait to see the BP for that. But when you get it up and running, the gay couple or the Black man can shop there if they want and you can’t stop them for those reasons.

See your constitutional rights stop where mine begin. And vice versa.

 

[bird]

Yes, religion is a choice. No one is this country is forced to celebrate a religion, are they? I have not seen press gangs forcing the masses to attend mass.

Hmmm. You claim slippery slope is a dangerous thing yet overlook the RW religionists and their push to inshrine so-called God’s law into the law of the secular state. What an interesting position. Perhaps more learning is called for.

 

[samiam5211]

Yes, religion is a choice. No one is this country is forced to celebrate a religion, are they? I have not seen press gangs forcing the masses to attend mass.

People are forced to pay for roads that people use to travel to church, people who use those roads to get to church give the church money, and the church does not have to contribute to the taxes that paid for the road that people used to get there to give the church money.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Yes, religion is a choice. No one is this country is forced to celebrate a religion, are they? I have not seen press gangs forcing the masses to attend mass.

This is actually closer to reality than the things you seem so scared of. There have been cases of people in prison being offered substance abuse counseling and things of that nature in order to receive a reduced sentence or having a program offered as part of a plea deal, but none of the options were secular. That's a government entity either coercing or forcing someone into a religious-based program.