All Things LGBTQ+ (2 Viewers)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
    Farb

    Farb

    Mostly Peaceful Poster
    Joined
    Oct 1, 2019
    Messages
    6,610
    Reaction score
    2,233
    Age
    49
    Location
    Mobile
    Offline
    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 said:
    Is there state compulsion for religion?
    Click to expand...
    amy_coney_barrett.jpg
     
    superchuck500 said:
    And that point it gets more nuanced - but a business flatly refusing gay customers for being gay doesn’t raise that kind of nuance.
    Click to expand...
    God I hate playing devil's advocate on @Farb's behalf, but I believe the bakery could probably use the same argument you posited - they freely serve gay people all the time, and are not refusing all gay customers just for being gay.

    Instead, they're refusing THESE gay customers on grounds that gay marriage is something that is in direct conflict with their religion. They're not opposing who the people are (gay), but they're opposing the action they're taking (marriage).

    As gay marriage directly flows from being gay, so then do the stated anti-LGBTQ positions directly flow from being Christian. As both sexual orientation and religion are protected classes, the argument you're making would need to be applied consistently to both groups.

    I actually think @Farb has a point here, even if I disagree with it, and even if he stumbled into it without really understanding.
     
    brandon said:
    God I hate playing devil's advocate on @Farb's behalf, but I believe the bakery could probably use the same argument you posited - they freely serve gay people all the time, and are not refusing all gay customers just for being gay.

    Instead, they're refusing THESE gay customers on grounds that gay marriage is something that is in direct conflict with their religion. They're not opposing who the people are (gay), but they're opposing the action they're taking (marriage).

    As gay marriage directly flows from being gay, so then do the stated anti-LGBTQ positions directly flow from being Christian. As both sexual orientation and religion are protected classes, the argument you're making would need to be applied consistently to both groups.

    I actually think @Farb has a point here, even if I disagree with it, and even if he stumbled into it without really understanding.
    Click to expand...

    I think the baker's problem is with weddings.

    Maybe the baker just shouldn't serve any weddings, if they can't include gay weddings.

    They can still operate a bakery, but their religious views prevent them from serving weddings.
     
    Farb said:
    Key point is who takes them to church? The state or parents?
    Click to expand...

    You asked if anyone was forced, not by whom. But, if the State is compelling someone to do or not do something on the basis of someone else's religion, the State may not be forcing you to go to church and worship Jesus, but I'd be forcing you to into religious practices.
     
    SystemShock said:
    Make sure you ask @coldseat for your personalized indoctrination starter kit.
    Click to expand...

    It's a great kit! Comes with personalized rainbow gear and flag, tickets to a drag show, a pamphlet on how to indoctrinate children, and your very own "Transwoman are Woman" bumper sticker. It's designed to make you 50% gayer.
     
    SystemShock said:
    ... maybe throw in a free subscription to a men's fashion magazine...
    Click to expand...

    If only I knew which ones to includes. Unfortunately I'm not that type of gay, even though I do enjoy fashion. I'd be happy to point you in the direction of some good gay porn though. Even provide assistance in setting up a Tinder profile, to get you started in the gay hook up scene. That's additional charge though, for personalized assistance.

    Did I mention the complementary gay start up kit is $39.99. Opps, sorry if I left that out. Gotta make a buck though, we are in America after all.
     
    Last edited:
    coldseat said:
    If only I knew which ones to includes. Unfortunately I'm not that type of gay, even I do enjoy fashion. I'd be happy to point you in the direction of some good gay porn though. Even provide assistance in setting up a Tinder profile, to get you started in the gay hook up scene. That's additional charge though, for personalized assistance.

    Did I mention the complementary gay start up kit is $39.99. Opps, sorry if I left that out. Gotta make a buck though, we are in America after all.
    Click to expand...
    How much to help plan adult gender reveals?
     
    Fox News’ Laura Ingraham sounded the alarm over the supposed death of religious rights that occurred when President Joe Biden signed the Respect for Marriage Act into law.

    The bill codifies federal protections for same-sex and interracial marriages, and it was the subject of great celebration at the White House on Tuesday. Fox News declined to air the event as it happened, but they got around to it on The Ingraham Angle as the eponymous host bashed the “over-the-top celebration.”

    “[This bill] moves to restrict freedom of religion, and freedom of speech even!” Ingraham exclaimed. “Meaning whether you’re Catholic or Evangelical or maybe Muslim, any serious person of faith, you will not necessarily have the rights, tomorrow, that you had yesterday.”

    While Ingraham did not explain her gripes with the bill in specific terms, the Heritage Foundation published a column recently that argued the act doesn’t offer enough in terms of religious exemptions and legal protections for various faith-based organizations.

    From the piece:


    Moreover, the current text of the Respect for Marriage Act only provides negative protections for religious liberty. While the bill enables anti-discrimination lawsuits to be filed against religious individuals or institutions, it doesn’t provide affirmative protections for them. It could take weeks, months, or maybe even a year, but without strong protections for religious institutions, anti-discrimination lawsuits over the nature of marriage are sure to follow.
    Click to expand...

     
    How are their rights being trampled on by the fact that other people are allowed to just, you know, live their lives with a modicum of decency and respect? 🤪 what sad little clowns they are.

    This is why you treat people with common decency and respect, btw:
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom