It's beyond that. If an elected official is blocking a business from getting a license because of that business owner's right to free speech, then that is a clear and direct abuse of the office they hold.
This ^
It's beyond that. If an elected official is blocking a business from getting a license because of that business owner's right to free speech, then that is a clear and direct abuse of the office they hold.
Clearly democracy is not perfect nor free from corruption but all we can do as individuals is to recognise who is failing us and get rid of them. Local politics can be highly complex imo and we'd need to understand the whole local picture which clearly as a Brit I don't for CFA or America generally and don't pretend I do.
First, we're not talking about forbidding a ceremony. Recognizing marriage as between one man and one woman is not forbidding a ceremony. You could still have whatever ceremony you like, it just wouldn't be recognized by the state. We're talking about the state recognizing and providing benefits to a particular relationship status. That sort of thing is quite appropriate for people to vote on.That's all very interesting Mary but...:liberals::idunno:
Yes I vote, so what? Either way here (UK) the church doesn't seek to impose any specifically Christian values on secular society thankfully.
If churches don't want to be involved in gay ceremonies then that's fair enough they shouldn't have to imo. But secular laws forbidding such ceremonies based on a particular religious view alone would be an unwelcome theocracy imposed on many otherwise law abiding people regardless of what you suppose to be "just and right"?
So, yes. I vote. Just like you. And I no more or less impose my vote on everyone else than you do when you vote. What I base my vote on is irrelevant to the question of whether or not I have the right to vote. I'll thank you not to seek to deny me the right to vote based purely on your not agreeing with how I vote. Just as I extend the same courtesy to you.Wrong, you simply want whatever you have decided is just and right, albeit derived (mindlessly?) from an ancient scripture, imposed on all, including those of us who dare to decide our own relative morality.
I agree with all this. Business owners should be able to have, hold and proclaim whatever views and beliefs they like. And their customers should have the right to base their determination whether to do business based on whatever they like.@OP
If Chick-fil-A chooses to present a discriminatory view rather than simply remain neutral then presumably that goes down rather well in some parts of the US, boosting their profits no doubt. But it's really no good them then whining if that same view is counter-productive and causes bad feelings elsewhere.
I would probably eat in a CFA if it was good food unless they openly disapproved of non-Christians and atheists when I would consider myself personally to be unwelcome.
I actually agree with you on this point regarding Rahm Emanuel in Chicago; if he does try to keep the Chich-Fil-A company out of Chicago based on the company CEO's political opinions being contrary to the Mayor's. But is that actually happening? Or was Emanuel just blowing hot air as politicians are inclined to do?I see, its ok to violate the constitution and its ok to deny free speech and freedom of religion, when YOU agree with it.
I actually agree with you on this point regarding Rahm Emanuel in Chicago; if he does try to keep the Chich-Fil-A company out of Chicago based on the company CEO's political opinions being contrary to the Mayor's. But is that actually happening? Or was Emanuel just blowing hot air as politicians are inclined to do?
I did, however, agree with Mayor Daley of Chicago when he refused to allow Walmart into the city based on their treatment of their employees, vendors, and the communities they inhabit. But that was different. In that case the Mayor was protecting the citizens from predatory and exploitive business practices.
Oh, give it a rest!Riiiiiiight! just a bit of steam by one of the "Good old boys!"
But, oh how different the response when it is one of the conservative bad guys....
Oh, give it a rest!
I said I agreed. I said I think he's wrong. And I said why I think so. Why can't you just accept that?
As a born-again Christian, I do not support gay marriage. I do support civil unions with exactly the same rights, just not the same name. One, marriage should be a function of faith. The other, civil unions, should be a legal matter.
That makes no sense.
If you recognize that gay "unions" are wrong, then you should not be supporting them. If you don't then you have no reason to refuse them the banner of "marriage".
I wasn't being snide at all! I just pointed out that I agreed, and why.Just let me know when you are resting in your hammock and then, I might give it a rest?
You get to initiate snideness and then, when called on it you say "Give it a rest"?
N-o-t a c-h-a-n-c-e!:ha:
I wasn't being snide at all! I just pointed out that I agreed, and why.
What's with you, today?
I believe it is the "humorous" political pictures you so blithely displayed.
They annoyed me.
Small thing.
I'm over it.
I still like you.
Hope you still like me?
We disagree then. I don't believe the state should distinguish with differing titles. It invites discriminatory practice. And I disagree with you on the state extending as an idea... The right to contract is already extended. The state would only be withdrawing its abrogation of a specific contract. And you can believe that it should as a matter of reflecting the nature of our social compact, which is a secular one, without rejecting your moral position on the sinful aspect of it.That makes no sense.
If you recognize that gay "unions" are wrong, then you should not be supporting them. If you don't then you have no reason to refuse them the banner of "marriage".
I think you're best argument here would be that you recognize they have the right to form gay unions under whatever rights your government extends to its people. But even then you should disagree that the government should extend that right in the first place.
It would take WAY more than a few odd posts to deter my appreciation of you! I promise!I believe it is the "humorous" political pictures you so blithely displayed.
They annoyed me.
Small thing.
I'm over it.
I still like you.
Hope you still like me?
Yes and as a secularist I too am somewhat interested in any social benefit that encouraging a traditional heterosexual marriage may give society but at the same time discriminating against those who don't want a heterosexual relationship is not reasonable imo.First, we're not talking about forbidding a ceremony. Recognizing marriage as between one man and one woman is not forbidding a ceremony. You could still have whatever ceremony you like, it just wouldn't be recognized by the state. We're talking about the state recognizing and providing benefits to a particular relationship status. That sort of thing is quite appropriate for people to vote on.
It doesn't matter to me particularly how individuals decide how to vote, that isn't the point. What I am saying is that civilised secular majorities should not need to impose their non-secular views on minorities just because they can control the levers of powers.Second, in voting on such a matter it's quite appropriate for people to determine their vote based on whatever the hell they like. Who are you to say they can't base that on their religious beliefs? How do you expect to determine who is voting based on their religious beliefs and who is not in the first place? Or "derived (mindlessly?) from an ancient scripture", as you've characterized it. Whatever.
Sorry but you rather lost me again here.Third, and to the original point that seemed to confuse you, this would not in any way be "wanting the government to tell you what is right and wrong". Unless you'd care to explain how any law forbidding, allowing or recognizing anything at all is likewise, then I suggest you're not thinking clearly on this issue. And even more to the point, hold that as evidence that my vote on this issue would clearly be more appropriate, having been thought out carefully and arrived upon rationally. And, as if it mattered a hoot in hell, not even based on any particular religious belief in the first place. Where as yours seems disturbingly rooted in bigoted thinking, misunderstanding the concept of freedom of religion and essentially just being irrational about it.
Again you seem to think that by winning a democratic vote somehow makes you right, it doesn't of course it only puts you in charge.Still, you don't see me or anyone else telling you that you can't vote because we don't agree with how you decided to vote. :idunno:
Except Mary that when you win that vote and get put in charge (heaven forbid) you will apparently not even consider tolerating or allowing for other (gay?) lifestyles, which would probably only be an abuse of power imo, not right and proper.So, yes. I vote. Just like you. And I no more or less impose my vote on everyone else than you do when you vote. What I base my vote on is irrelevant to the question of whether or not I have the right to vote. I'll thank you not to seek to deny me the right to vote based purely on your not agreeing with how I vote. Just as I extend the same courtesy to you.
I agree with all this. Business owners should be able to have, hold and proclaim whatever views and beliefs they like. And their customers should have the right to base their determination whether to do business based on whatever they like.
Governments, however, should consult the people when determining what policies and laws they implement. People like me and you.
Because those "mandates" were wrong. Or are you going to argue against government entirely based on this logic?Jesus did not give any Christian the authority to make anyone live according to any of our beliefs. Jesus came and said many, many things against religious leaders of that time period for causing others to live according to their mandates. Let's not go there again.
This does not in any way answer the question. Are gay unions wrong or not? If not, then I can understand why you support them. If they are, then I can't understand why you don't support traditional marriage.Here is the deal about sin. I cannot make you NOT sin. GOD could make you not sin, but GOD would rather you not sin by choice because it is not the lifestyle GOD created you to have and leaves that choice, those choices to you, everyone, me. He gave us His standard of behavior on this earth and created us with a free will to choose. Nobody will have an excuse when we stand before Him in eternity after we leave this earth. We were given the guidelines and the choice. We will be judged by Him alone on our choices.
We disagree then. I don't believe the state should distinguish with differing titles. It invites discriminatory practice. And I disagree with you on the state extending as an idea... The right to contract is already extended. The state would only be withdrawing its abrogation of a specific contract. And you can believe that it should as a matter of reflecting the nature of our social compact, which is a secular one, without rejecting your moral position on the sinful aspect of it.
Lastly, the homosexual union shouldn't have to produce proof that it benefits the state any more than a heterosexual should. The right to contract, or own property, or speak your mind doesn't exist to serve or benefit the state, though they can. I can speak against the state or enter into a horribly destructive marriage or buy property that would be a great place for a park and build statue of me surrounded by "No tresspassing! This means YOU!" signs.
Now stable unions tend to produce happier people and happier people tend to be more productive and better citizens, but that's gravy. It's a gravy the state recognizes, which is why it encourages it. It does so even for childless couples (to nip that one in the bud).
You agree that government can and should encourage stable unions but disagree with government discriminating between heterosexual and homosexual, correct? Because you either see or assume both are equally as capable of forming stable unions. Or, at the very least, any difference there is acceptable in the interests of avoiding unjust discrimination. Right?
But what if homosexual unions do not produce stable unions? Or if, stable or not, still destructive in some other manner? How can we know without examining this question? That's hardly discriminatory! We already have every other imaginable union that is not recognized and encouraged for precisely that reason. We are not allowed to marry our siblings, for example. How is this not likewise unacceptably discriminatory?
You assume homosexual unions can be as stable and healthy as heterosexual unions. What if they were not capable of that? Would your opinion here change at all?