Same sex marriage

[Thedosius]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

(That's why I give you those links; so you can read 'em before you put yourself out there with some crazy statement.)

Please take your own advice re: crazy statements.

But, of course, none of this was going to happen. This thread is closed,

https://www.city-data.com/forum/minne...-marriage.html

but remember these knee slappers?

Post #5 "Voting down a constitutional ban doesn't legalize gay marriage. It just maintains the status quo."

I'm sorry you find what truly is the case to be a knee slapper, but the sentence above is 100% unarguably true. The perspective from the conservative fever swamp of terror doesn't weigh as heavily on sane minds as...reality.

Post #6 "What he said... It will still be illegal in MN no matter how the results of the vote turn out."

Yep, this is just one more step on a trail of half truths, false assurances, and intentional deception.

Once again, glass houses: your arguments have been a pretty unending stream of not half truths but blatant falsehoods. Seriously, have you no awareness that pretty much everything you have said on this topic is completely devoid of intellectual integrity?

[Thedosius]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

They were required (that means forced) to transport the dogs and alcohol if they wanted to remain cab drivers or their licenses (granted to them under the law) would be revoked if they didn't. I am not sure why you feel a need to change what happened. I personally think that the MAC made the right decision, but I can also argue from the cab drivers' (or baker's) perspective.

How you went from this reasonable point of view to what you followed with in other posts is utterly mysterious to me. Here's the rub: when you participate in the PUBLIC market you follow PUBLIC rules and regulations. In the case of the chapel in Utah, the legal status of the organization is in question- which is entirely reasonable and is NOT (rationally speaking) an infringement of religious freedom. It is a question of is the entity a religious one or not? If that status is unclear, the question of religious freedom does not yet apply. Yet you have over and over predicated your arguments on the crystal clear certainty that this is an example of religious rights being trampled. You yourself have stated there is a case pending...how then can you make the categorical statements that the issue at hand is one of religious freedom and liberal intolerance of it? There is a tremendous about of dishonesty in your arguments.

I agree with you that the right decision was made in the case of the muslim cab drivers. That doesn't mean I'm totally deaf and blind to their point of view. In the case of the chapel, however, there is real question of the status of the entity in question so I think it's a different matter. Furthermore, this is a question of a (possible) business being discriminatory.

You accuse liberals of being intolerant of religious freedom and being unable to see the other side's point of view. You have clearly exhibited that you are completely incapable of understanding how the 'other side' views this as a matter of discrimination and bigotry- a point of view at least as equally valid as your own if- as you say- the fact that there is a pending court case regarding the status of the entity involved. Please don't try to backpedal and somehow pretend your mind isn't snapped shut entirely on your side of the argument: it's much, much too late for that.

[chessgeek]

A chapel business is not the same as a church from a legal standpoint on this issue as a few other posters have already mentioned. I do think the 180 day prison sentence is draconian and sort of defeats the purpose of a fine, though. It costs money to imprison someone. Hopefully, they end up just paying a large fine or come to their senses and perform the ceremonies. BTW, there is nothing legally preventing them from telling the couples in advance that they personally disagree with same sex marriage, but must and will do so to comply with the law. The odds are that some of those couples would go elsewhere for their marriage ceremonies after hearing that.

[iNviNciBL3]

Mods can close this if they want.

This issue is behind us now.

[Glenfield]

I concede that the Hitching Post is a business, but that doesn't necessarily mean there can't be religious exemptions to the law.

In Burwell vs. Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court found that the owners of a for profit business may be exempt from the provisions of a law to which they object on a religious basis if there is another less restrictive way of achieving the law's objectives. And while the Hobby Lobby case does not set a firm precedent for this case it will be argued in court that the circumstances are similar. The point being that the Hitching Post's status as a for profit company does not mean that issue is decided one way or another.

And while the election that spurred this thread is past, the effects are clearly not behind us.

[Sven3xs]

Originally Posted by Govie

Ooooh snap.

I don't even know where to begin with this post.

Start with applause for him noticing and repeating it ;-)

[2x3x29x41]

Originally Posted by iNviNciBL3

So if this gets passed can church's with strong marriage = one man-one women beliefs decline to marry a gay/lesbian couple?

Originally Posted by golfgal

Catholic priests can refuse to marry anyone. I know of a couple, male/female, that a priest refused to marry because he didn't think they were ready to get married. What is wrong with the church stepping up for what they believe in? The Catholic church does not condemn gay people, they just don't believe in same sex marriage or sex between gay people. Its not discrimination, it's standing up for a fundamental belief in your faith. Same with abortion and a host of other moral issues. Abortion is legal, doesn't mean the Catholic church condones it.

Originally Posted by Glenfield

I don't disagree with you, but let's just see how this plays out, say, five years from now.

It's been six years since you wrote that.

The whole shtick with opposing marriage equality was that BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE!

Really, it's the same baseless hair-on-fire hysteria served up any time someone suggests that society advance a little.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by 2x3x29x41

It's been six years since you wrote that.

The whole shtick with opposing marriage equality was that BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE!

Really, it's the same baseless hair-on-fire hysteria served up any time someone suggests that society advance a little.

There are a few bakers, photographers, and florists who would question your use of the term “baseless” but who cares if there are a few casualties in the cultural wars, eh? Just get on the right side and nobody gets hurt, right?