All Things LGBTQ+ (3 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.

 

[Farb]

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.

Oh, Ok. This will be a lawsuit too, I hope and by your explanation above, you agree that this restaurant broke the law? Is religion a protected class?
https://www.foxnews.com/us/virginia...aurant-safety-concerns-amazingly-hypocritical

What if, here we go with the slippery slope you love to hate, what if Nathan Bedford Forrest's great great great whatever great grandson wanted to commission a painting of him in his klan gear, torches and all, for a family reunion? Would a black painter be compelled to paint it, like the cake baker? I have a feeling you will find that morally unimaginable and wrong (I would too- but I also find that the scenario with the cake baker to wrong as I don't believe any government can compel it's citizens to partake in something they find morally wrong).

While I know I am not in your level of intelligence and you seem to want to make sure I know that but I don't think it is that simple dude. Nor does the SC, hence the case before them.

When the state decided to dictate and compel free citizens on what they can and cant do with their labor as well as dictate who they associate with, I see that as a problem.

 

[Farb]

I didn't ask a question Farb. I made a statement.

I said, "Irreversible and experimental medical procedures," with drugs, is good way to describe religious brain washing."

You're not actually expected to respond. But if you do respond try to show why what I said is wrong.

Or agree with it, that would be OK as well.

Yeah, you are correct, that attempt at a drive by doesn't deserve a response. You are better at trolling than that.

 

[Farb]

Are people forced to be gay?

Forced, no. Encouraged, yes.

 

[Farb]

Well, if you are talking about adults, not anymore; although there are people who do want to impose Christianity on others.

And then there are children. Children are taken to a church and told to believe in a certain dogma and not given any other choice. In that, they are forced into religion.

Key point is who takes them to church? The state or parents?

 

[Farb]

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.

Is there state compulsion for religion? That was the question I asked.

 

[Farb]

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.

LOL. That money that was donated to the church, was it taxed when it was made? If the church uses that money to buy a product or pay for a service, is it not taxed?
You didn't think that stroke against churches out very deep did you.

 

[Farb]

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.

I am standing with you on this one. No more plea deals or reduction of sentences! I am 100% for inmates serving every single second of their imprisonment. You and I agree on something!!! BFF!

Do the prisons pay for that program or is it volunteered?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I am standing with you on this one. No more plea deals or reduction of sentences! I am 100% for inmates serving every single second of their imprisonment. You and I agree on something!!! BFF!

Do the prisons pay for that program or is it volunteered?

Much like the housing and feeding of inmates, the government pays for it. If the government makes these programs available but refuses to include secular options, they are forcing religion on people.

 

[coldseat]

Oh, Ok. This will be a lawsuit too, I hope and by your explanation above, you agree that this restaurant broke the law? Is religion a protected class?
https://www.foxnews.com/us/virginia...aurant-safety-concerns-amazingly-hypocritical

What if, here we go with the slippery slope you love to hate, what if Nathan Bedford Forrest's great great great whatever great grandson wanted to commission a painting of him in his klan gear, torches and all, for a family reunion? Would a black painter be compelled to paint it, like the cake baker? I have a feeling you will find that morally unimaginable and wrong (I would too- but I also find that the scenario with the cake baker to wrong as I don't believe any government can compel it's citizens to partake in something they find morally wrong).

While I know I am not in your level of intelligence and you seem to want to make sure I know that but I don't think it is that simple dude. Nor does the SC, hence the case before them.

When the state decided to dictate and compel free citizens on what they can and cant do with their labor as well as dictate who they associate with, I see that as a problem.

You keep using the word compel. I don't think you know what that means. The only thing being compelled by the government is that everybody follow non-discrimination law. That's it. You don't get a special exemption from that just because you're religious (or at least you shouldn't, but this right wing SC will probably allow it).

 

[Optimus Prime]

You keep using the word compel. I don't think you know what that means.

Missed opportunity

 

[superchuck500]

Oh, Ok. This will be a lawsuit too, I hope and by your explanation above, you agree that this restaurant broke the law? Is religion a protected class?
https://www.foxnews.com/us/virginia...aurant-safety-concerns-amazingly-hypocritical

What if, here we go with the slippery slope you love to hate, what if Nathan Bedford Forrest's great great great whatever great grandson wanted to commission a painting of him in his klan gear, torches and all, for a family reunion? Would a black painter be compelled to paint it, like the cake baker? I have a feeling you will find that morally unimaginable and wrong (I would too- but I also find that the scenario with the cake baker to wrong as I don't believe any government can compel it's citizens to partake in something they find morally wrong).

While I know I am not in your level of intelligence and you seem to want to make sure I know that but I don't think it is that simple dude. Nor does the SC, hence the case before them.

When the state decided to dictate and compel free citizens on what they can and cant do with their labor as well as dictate who they associate with, I see that as a problem.

You continue to dramatically misunderstand what public accommodation law is. I will say that I do agree that a restaurant should not be denying serving to anyone based on their religion- and that includes Christians.

That said, a restaurant can say that they serve Christians all the time, they’re only refusing these Christians because of their publicly stated position on gays and abortion. And that point it gets more nuanced - but a business flatly refusing gay customers for being gay doesn’t raise that kind of nuance. Nonetheless, yes I think Christians are protected under the public accommodations law.

Beyond that, I’m giving up at this point with your ridiculous slippery slope arguments that continue to raise hypotheticals that aren’t protected under the law. Further discussion is pure futility.

 

[nolaspe]

Great news... love is love...

 

[bird]

Is there state compulsion for religion? That was the question I asked.

Welp, if the RW had their way you would get the answer to your question.

 

[bird]

LOL. That money that was donated to the church, was it taxed when it was made? If the church uses that money to buy a product or pay for a service, is it not taxed?
You didn't think that stroke against churches out very deep did you.

Lol. That is the same incredibly simplistic and stupid argument trotted out regarding inheritance tax. Just like inheritance becomes income and thus should be subject to income tax, revenue to churches, any and all churches should be subject to taxation. The tax or non-tax status of the source of the revenue is irrelevant. You didn’t think that out very deep, did you?

 

[nolaspe]

Forced, no. Encouraged, yes.

Ok, I'll play, when did you decide to be straight?

 

[MT15]

This could go in a couple different threads. It works here:

 

[nolaspe]

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Ok, I'll play, when did you decide to be straight?

I tried leading him down this path, but he ignored it. Shocking.