Gay Marriage declared legal across the USA!

mentor wrote:however Vod....your alter ego always makes the false and disgusting lie that links gays with paedophillia..

which has been proven to be bull shit time and time again

rather than simply disagreeing he bellittles and attempts to taint, with arguments that wouldnt convice a monkey, those who are gay...

How many times have I had to say to YOU i dont give a damn what you beleive in, nor should anyone stomp on your right to beleive it...BUT ONLY up to the point where your belief is incompatible with anothers lawful and reasonable rights?

If it wasnt for the fact hes such a tough old bugger, i'd say HF was paranoid....

I mean...and I'm asking seriously......what harm, physical or psychological can someone being gay do you

what harm can allowing gay couples the same rights as the rest of us enjoy (note not EXTRA rights...just THE SAME rights) do to you??

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

mentor wrote:however Vod....your alter ego always makes the false and disgusting lie that links gays with paedophillia..

which has been proven to be bull shit time and time again

rather than simply disagreeing he bellittles and attempts to taint, with arguments that wouldnt convice a monkey, those who are gay...

How many times have I had to say to YOU i dont give a damn what you beleive in, nor should anyone stomp on your right to beleive it...BUT ONLY up to the point where your belief is incompatible with anothers lawful and reasonable rights?

If it wasnt for the fact hes such a tough old bugger, i'd say HF was paranoid....

I mean...and I'm asking seriously......what harm, physical or psychological can someone being gay do you

what harm can allowing gay couples the same rights as the rest of us enjoy (note not EXTRA rights...just THE SAME rights) do to you??

Actually I have never tried to link homosexuality with peadophilia, I have though shown time and time again that gays can be peado's, I think trying to justify otherwise when it is not true can put children in danger, I do not believe gays are any more or any less likely to be peadophiles...

now that is disingenious HF.....and certainly not how the majority here would see your posts....however thanks for clatifying THAT...and of course what you are saying is right...but it is a fact which IS recognised by the gay community...why do you think that "certain person" you refer to has ended up sidelined and ignored, even by what were once his supporters....And whilst recognising that fact, surely that then makes no difference in the consideration of placing children with gay parents?? any more that a straight couple?


the danger is... a gay agenda has been set that is quite clear an that agenda has escalated, it is no longer equality they want more rights than normal people and that is not equality...

What "extra rights"?? please explain.....

mentor wrote:however Vod....your alter ego always makes the false and disgusting lie that links gays with paedophillia..

which has been proven to be bull shit time and time again

rather than simply disagreeing he bellittles and attempts to taint, with arguments that wouldnt convice a monkey, those who are gay...

How many times have I had to say to YOU i dont give a damn what you beleive in, nor should anyone stomp on your right to beleive it...BUT ONLY up to the point where your belief is incompatible with anothers lawful and reasonable rights?

If it wasnt for the fact hes such a tough old bugger, i'd say HF was paranoid....

I mean...and I'm asking seriously......what harm, physical or psychological can someone being gay do you

what harm can allowing gay couples the same rights as the rest of us enjoy (note not EXTRA rights...just THE SAME rights) do to you??

Vicar of Dibley wrote:

mentor wrote:however Vod....your alter ego always makes the false and disgusting lie that links gays with paedophillia..

which has been proven to be bull shit time and time again

rather than simply disagreeing he bellittles and attempts to taint, with arguments that wouldnt convice a monkey, those who are gay...

How many times have I had to say to YOU i dont give a damn what you beleive in, nor should anyone stomp on your right to beleive it...BUT ONLY up to the point where your belief is incompatible with anothers lawful and reasonable rights?

If it wasnt for the fact hes such a tough old bugger, i'd say HF was paranoid....

I mean...and I'm asking seriously......what harm, physical or psychological can someone being gay do you

what harm can allowing gay couples the same rights as the rest of us enjoy (note not EXTRA rights...just THE SAME rights) do to you??

Nothing wrong with having the same rights at all , i just don't like the way they have used their rights to force for example Christian businesses to accept their lifestyle and they have targeted Christians , the bakers and the B&B , why should they be forced to make a cake when it is what they disagree with and they want to have their rights as Christians to refuse , the B&B that targeted and they knew the strong beliefs of having same sex couples in their home . I know and understand that gays want to be accepted and they are but they don't have the right to force others to go against their faith, they wouldn't do it to moslems and even we have to respect the religious customs or we are in trouble for inciting religious hatred , the same should apply to all faiths if they don't want to accept a certain group then why should they . That's real equality and that is respecting others for what they believe . There are hundreds of bakers and hundreds of B&B's all over the country which the gay couple could have chosen but they wanted to force Christians to accept them or else we will sue you . That wasn't fair and yet the court had to rule in their favour because that would be discrimination , but what about the discrimination of Christians just because they simply want to stand by their beliefs .

I am not homophobic i don't have any fear of gay people i just don't want them taking away or forcing me to go against what i believe the bible says .

mentor wrote:OK Vod and HF where do we go from here...

1) in general would you agree that there can/should only be one law to cover any particular situation

2) would you also agree that the LAW is quite clear that when it comes to "rights" some have precedent over others
IF they come into conflict

3) would you also agree that religious views aside there also and seperately exists a core of people who, given the chance would use their irrational dislike (irrational in thier case since it stems from no other reason than "i dont like it") to not only decry homosexuality but cause physical harm to them let alone deny them any form of rights

mentor wrote:
OKAAyyy

however whilst "law" in general is as you say. In any given issue there is usually only one law to cover it (though of course ther will be endless debate around what that means...someone has to make work for lawyers)

2 is quite simple...not all rights are or indeed can be "equal under the law", since othewise there would be severe problems when one right clashes with another (for instance when the right of free speech clashes with the far more important freedom of security of person)

3 the relevance will become clear



Now in one way I am quite sure the legal decisons made with both the bakers and the B&B owners were correct under law

I am equally certain that they were Necessary under the law also

However both these judgements did and continue to niggle as well

sure they were correct and necessary

I am not however totally convinced they were "righteous" (as in a general NOT religious sense)

so...why were that not righteous

because I feel, they ignored that very important freedom ...that of freedom of concience

HOWEVER

since we cannot have one law for those with a religious concience on something AND at the same time a different one for everyone else (because of point 3 ...the blind haters could then hide behind "religious concience as an excuse for all kind of vileness and discrimination)

and ALSO

given the above,  it is quite clear that denying someone their right to religious concience on one small matter is LESS harmfull than allowing the situation where many many would be subject to unreasonable discrimination on many things

the it is obvious which way the die will fall.

now specifics

the bakers had ACCEPTED the "contract" (of sale)

they then refused to carry out that contract without lawful reason (becasue religous concience is NOT lawful reason)  so they were busted

The B&B owners...hmm...again a bit disquieting when you look at it from an entirely unpartisan POV...

again given my point 3 really the only way to go ahead.


The problem of course is that ANYONE can make up any old story about having a religious concience and, if the law was other than it is discriminate without reason just for the hell of it and to be a basty nastard....

now It would be nice IF we could accomodate ALL view points

certainly the bakers were wrong...and there are better ways to go about things...personally I think THEY were all out to make a point...which when the law is so much bigger than you is plain stupid.

It is more difficult for the B&B owners, especially since they I understand were an older couple?

unfortunately HF because of the existance of those that would no doubt claim "religion" as an excuse, we cannot make an exception for "religious concience" (which would otherwise affect only a few people these days in any case)

I think what I'm trying to point out here is that whilst it perhaps would be nice to allow those of deeply held religious beleif to indulge in their ideas, It cannot be done...


unless you can arrange for the "true believers " to be permanently surrounded by say a halo so we could know them? (and I bet someone would work out how to counterfeit even that )

Tommy Monk wrote:Not read any of this thread yet...


But just to comment on the op...



Wasn't this an extremely close run and therefore entirely questionable ruling being a majority of only one in favour...!?


Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't it a vote out of 9 with only 5 in favour and 4 against..?




Hardly conclusive or a resounding endorsement now is it...!?

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

mentor wrote:
OKAAyyy

however whilst "law" in general is as you say. In any given issue there is usually only one law to cover it (though of course ther will be endless debate around what that means...someone has to make work for lawyers)

2 is quite simple...not all rights are or indeed can be "equal under the law", since othewise there would be severe problems when one right clashes with another (for instance when the right of free speech clashes with the far more important freedom of security of person)

3 the relevance will become clear



Now in one way I am quite sure the legal decisons made with both the bakers and the B&B owners were correct under law

I am equally certain that they were Necessary under the law also

However both these judgements did and continue to niggle as well

sure they were correct and necessary

I am not however totally convinced they were "righteous" (as in a general NOT religious sense)

so...why were that not righteous

because I feel, they ignored that very important freedom ...that of freedom of concience

HOWEVER

since we cannot have one law for those with a religious concience on something AND at the same time a different one for everyone else (because of point 3 ...the blind haters could then hide behind "religious concience as an excuse for all kind of vileness and discrimination)

and ALSO

given the above,  it is quite clear that denying someone their right to religious concience on one small matter is LESS harmfull than allowing the situation where many many would be subject to unreasonable discrimination on many things

the it is obvious which way the die will fall.

now specifics

the bakers had ACCEPTED the "contract" (of sale)

they then refused to carry out that contract without lawful reason (becasue religous concience is NOT lawful reason)  so they were busted

The B&B owners...hmm...again a bit disquieting when you look at it from an entirely unpartisan POV...

again given my point 3 really the only way to go ahead.


The problem of course is that ANYONE can make up any old story about having a religious concience and, if the law was other than it is discriminate without reason just for the hell of it and to be a basty nastard....

now It would be nice IF we could accomodate ALL view points

certainly the bakers were wrong...and there are better ways to go about things...personally I think THEY were all out to make a point...which when the law is so much bigger than you is plain stupid.

It is more difficult for the B&B owners, especially since they I understand were an older couple?

unfortunately HF because of the existance of those that would no doubt claim "religion" as an excuse, we cannot make an exception for "religious concience" (which would otherwise affect only a few people these days in any case)

I think what I'm trying to point out here is that whilst it perhaps would be nice to allow those of deeply held religious beleif to indulge in their ideas, It cannot be done...


unless you can arrange for the "true believers " to be permanently surrounded by say a halo so we could know them? (and I bet someone would work out how to counterfeit even that )

So we are agreed that the rights of gays have overrun the rights of believers...

So quite patronisingly the law says it's nice that you believe that but you cannot live that out....

yet it says to the gays you can believe it and live it at the expense of others who believe differently to you...

no equality, quite simply no equality...

anyone should have the right to refuse to something they disagree with.. if that means serving someone or making a cake that condones something you do not believe in you should have the right to refuse..

it will be the militant gays that cause the gays the problems at the end of the day..

korban dallas wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

So we are agreed that the rights of gays have overrun the rights of believers...

So quite patronisingly the law says it's nice that you believe that but you cannot live that out....

yet it says to the gays you can believe it and live it at the expense of others who believe differently to you...

no equality, quite simply no equality...

anyone should have the right to refuse to something they disagree with.. if that means serving someone or making a cake that condones something you do not believe in you should have the right to refuse..

it will be the militant gays that cause the gays the problems at the end of the day..

rights of believers...do they have special rights ? do those rights out way the rights of non believers who don`t believe in the bible or Hindus or Muslims ect why do you want to be the sole arbiter of what is permissible to people who don`t follow your religion thats why we have a government
your trying to force your beliefs on others regardless of what they think why ? just the same as ISIS is trying to do or Muslim fundamentalists ty to do

honestly Cr-isis fits you perfectly

Vicar of Dibley wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
rights of believers...do they have special rights ? do those rights out way the rights of non believers who don`t believe in the bible or Hindus or Muslims ect why do you want to be the sole arbiter of what is permissible to people who don`t follow your religion thats why we have a government
your trying to force your beliefs on others regardless of what they think why ? just the same as ISIS is trying to do or Muslim fundamentalists ty to do

honestly Cr-isis fits you perfectly

you militant gays are trying to force your lifestyle on everyone

Vicar of Dibley wrote:

korban dallas wrote:
rights of believers...do they have special rights ? do those rights out way the rights of non believers who don`t believe in the bible or Hindus or Muslims ect why do you want to be the sole arbiter of what is permissible to people who don`t follow your religion thats why we have a government
your trying to force your beliefs on others regardless of what they think why ? just the same as ISIS is trying to do or Muslim fundamentalists ty to do

honestly Cr-isis fits you perfectly

you militant gays are trying to force your lifestyle on everyone

mentor wrote:but, it aint that simple is it....

I disagree with having to MOT my car, since i maintain and check it myself....and have never had one fail an MOT yet....

so its an expensive and unnecessary burden as far as I am concerned....

but I have to do it.....


the situation you are describing is exacly what I mean when I talk of "rights" being limited in some cases.

moreover...what you have to understand is that in fact, there are NO such things as "rights" in no place and at no time has there ever been any "right" to anything.....merely "concessions" granted by society.

That understood, It is obvious that when 2 sets of "rights" collide, one is going to lose out.

the problem is that the rights of one impact negatively upon the other in some way

unfortunately for those of a religious inclination the harm done to (I.E a VERY few bakers and B&B owners etc ) is much less than the potential harm done to 1000's of gay folk on a regular basis if discriminatory practices were allowed...

you are going to have to realise that either you get with it so to speak or you will be sidelined as irrelevant. as you must know history is littered with the skeletons of ideas that failed to adapt or move ahead...

do I think thats a good thing...not necessarily always
do I think its ineviatabl....definitely.....

christianity in this country (in terms of numbers) is going through the floor as a religion of choice..and whatever the reason (and there are many) it is unlikely to ever be "significant " again....

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

mentor wrote:but, it aint that simple is it....

I disagree with having to MOT my car, since i maintain and check it myself....and have never had one fail an MOT yet....

so its an expensive and unnecessary burden as far as I am concerned....

but I have to do it.....


the situation you are describing is exacly what I mean when I talk of "rights" being limited in some cases.

moreover...what you have to understand is that in fact, there are NO such things as "rights" in no place and at no time has there ever been any "right" to anything.....merely "concessions" granted by society.

That understood, It is obvious that when 2 sets of "rights" collide, one is going to lose out.

the problem is that the rights of one impact negatively upon the other in some way

unfortunately for those of a religious inclination the harm done to (I.E a VERY few bakers and B&B owners etc ) is much less than the potential harm done to 1000's of gay folk on a regular basis if discriminatory practices were allowed...

you are going to have to realise that either you get with it so to speak or you will be sidelined as irrelevant. as you must know history is littered with the skeletons of ideas that failed to adapt or move ahead...

do I think thats a good thing...not necessarily always
do I think its ineviatabl....definitely.....

christianity in this country (in terms of numbers) is going through the floor as a religion of choice..and whatever the reason (and there are many) it is unlikely to ever be "significant " again....

what an interesting concept you seem to be saying it is ok because in this battle a minority ie two Christian bakers got sued for what they believed...

would you be quite so smug if the tiny minority of gays compared to normal people suddenly lost all their rights, including marriage, civil marriage or even the old sodomy laws are brought back....

I guess that wouldn't be quite so fair would it...

See what I mean gays are bigots. they don't want equality....

korban dallas wrote:

Vicar of Dibley wrote:

you militant gays are trying to force your lifestyle on everyone

So cr-isis is now calling everybody a militant gay ? as if i give a shit what a brain dead ass thinks
trying to force your beliefs on others it`s the equivalent of Christian sharia doctrine

korban dallas wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

what an interesting concept you seem to be saying it is ok because in this battle a minority ie two Christian bakers got sued for what they believed...

would you be quite so smug if the tiny minority of gays compared to normal people suddenly lost all their rights, including marriage, civil marriage or even the old sodomy laws are brought back....

I guess that wouldn't be quite so fair would it...

See what I mean gays are bigots. they don't want equality....

Yet its ovious yyour the one who doesn`t want equality your way or nothing
your a bigot a homophobic nutcase
your calling for the same things as ISIS but from a fundamentalist Christian point view of how things should be
honestly fuck of
it`s pricks like you the cause the hate and crap this world should have moved past century`s ago

korban dallas wrote:

heavenlyfatheragain wrote:

what an interesting concept you seem to be saying it is ok because in this battle a minority ie two Christian bakers got sued for what they believed...

would you be quite so smug if the tiny minority of gays compared to normal people suddenly lost all their rights, including marriage, civil marriage or even the old sodomy laws are brought back....

I guess that wouldn't be quite so fair would it...

See what I mean gays are bigots. they don't want equality....

Yet its ovious yyour the one who doesn`t want equality your way or nothing
your a bigot a homophobic nutcase
your calling for the same things as ISIS but from a fundamentalist Christian point view of how things should be
honestly fuck of
it`s pricks like you the cause the hate and crap this world should have moved past century`s ago

Tommy Monk wrote:I'm sure that a request to a known pro gay establishment for something other than pro gay will be welcomed or face discrimination charges too!?



What do you think would be happening if someone went to a known gay function providers and requested a cake and banners proclaiming that only male and female relationships were right...!?




Look what happened to this advert on the London busses...


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-17693947



All in the name of equality mind...!!!

Vicar of Dibley wrote:night bigots

Tommy Monk wrote:It's not treating people equally at all when a bus advert is allowed by a tiny group promoting their sexually deviant behaviour to all and sundry, regardless, but then a similar but opposing view held by the majority was banned for causing offense to only some of The original minority group...
YES that is equally
Because No one is telling straight people don't be straight but there you called gay people sexually deviant and implied they are bad
SO YOU ARE NOT treating people equally, YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO DISCRIMINATE. You can say "accept heterosexuals" pay to put in to on a bus no one will have a problem BUT that is not what you want you want to put up "HATE HOMOSEXUAL" that is completely different, that is not asking to be treated equally that is asking to treat someone worse that yourself AND THAT IS NO ON!!!




And then, as claimed, 'all in the name of equality'...!?
YES completely, Equality is being equal so yes you have the exact same rights.. exactly the same.. Because NO ONE has the right to promote hating on someone else the homosexual doesn't have that right and neither do you! You have the right to ask to be treated the SAME as someone else, So you have the right to tell people not to Harm you or hate you because your heterosexual BUT as no one is suggesting that is is a bit of a waste of time.... Homosexuals on the other hand have the Criminal, you, Breaking the law promoting promoting hate and harm to homosexuals.


Anyone else see the glaring inequality here...!!!???
NO only a dumbass would even suggest that this in not equal or think that "asking to not be hurt" is the same as "wanting to hurt someone". YES deny someone a right to marriage is hurting them when that right is given to others

Tommy Monk wrote:... although not just our biological make up but every other major religion on the planet is only supporting the normal and natural male+female way of life...



But it seems that London bus adverts are only allowed to promote the view of the twisted tiny minority...

veya_victaous wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Not what bus adverts said... plus I can call unnatural and abnormal sexually deviant practices as such if I choose!

Eilzel wrote:In fairness though, while leaps and bounds better than Ratzinger, he still firmly opposes gay marriage.

Eilzel wrote:I'm surprised tommy is citing religion as any kind of credible source on what is normal or natural.

veya_victaous wrote:and YES equality, you have to treat people equally, So if someone starts talking about make believe fairytale that have been categorically disproved they should be treated equally to anyone else have delusional hallucinations, which is ignored...      

equality doesn't mean everyone gets to do what they want, it means the same standard must apply to everyone.
AND it is completely separate from a business. a Business DOES NOT HAVE EQUALITY, it is subject to legislation and requirements specific to a Business. A business no more right to enforce it's personal beliefs on the public than to sell drugs. both are against the requirements for running a business.