Senate passes same-sex marriage bill with bipartisan support

[Dude653]

The foundation of the Constitution says our rights come from God and male to female marriage is required to sustain the society just as murder is outlawed but both are in the Bible. Most of our laws are founded in English law which had the Bible as the majority moral code for legislation.

Among many things that brought Rome down was the decline in sexual boundaries.

The amendment clause to the 1st amendment literally says the government can't use religion to pass laws.. imagine trying to tell me I don't have a right to not practice your religion. Pretentious much?
I'm not saying all Christians are like this because I have plenty of Christian friends who are super chill but there's definitely a demographic in America who thinks anything less than 100% compliance or their demands equates to them being persecuted

 

[The_Watchers_2017]

The Constitution says otherwise the amendment clause to the Constitution literally says government can't pass any laws that favor any one religion

Let's put aside the legal system and play a theoretical game for a moment.

In the next 5 minutes the entire planet earth implodes ending all life forms.

Immediately, every human that was living is now standing before God.

God is judging them based off the Bible.

All Sinners like same sex people end up in Hell forever.

What did having the right to marry benefit them when they're going to Hell?

 

[Scarecrow]

Not at the state level.

States that try would find their laws struck down as unconstitutional.

 

[Scarecrow]

gay marriage is not a religion.

neither is straight marriage.

 

[NotmebutHim]

God is just giving mankind what it has asked for. This is what false liberty (cf. 2 Peter 2) looks like.

 

[Scarecrow]

(the bill protects legally married same sex married couples and legally married interracial married couples from discrimination. What religious freedom is being attacked exactly?)

What happens when someone is brought to court over discrimination?

then a trial is held to determine if said discrimination took place and just what laws were broken in engaging in that discrimination. For example in Brown v the Board of education the courts found that when the Topika Board of Education segregated students they were engaging in discrimination and violating the constitution.

Religious organization do not marry gay couples or agree with it. They also do not hire or allow them into leadership.

and they don't have to do either. Churches are not businesses, they do not provide services to the public. A priest/minister is acting as a private citizen when he or she agrees to perform a wedding ceremony and as such they can chose who they do that for. This is why one can still hear about ministers refusing to marry an interracial couple and they are perfectly in their right to do so.

(what persecution have you personally experienced?)

Mine is minor in comparison to those under the Obama administration. Minor to places like China but the persecution starts somewhere.

So you are not being persecuted.

Who exactly was persecuted under the Obama administration?

(you mean the baker who chose to discriminate against a minority?)

No. He was an artist. When do we force artists to make art against their beliefs?

he was a business owner who provided a service to the public for a fee. His business was a public accommodation not private. When you open a business you are subject to the laws of the state and country and you get to serve everyone equally. The Constitution is very clear on the matter that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law even people said business owner chooses to not like. This is why we live in an age where you wont' see business posting signs saying they will only serve white people.[/QUOTE]

 

[Scarecrow]

Roe was unconstitutional. It never went through the proper methods to be federal law.

it wasn't a law, it was a ruling

 

[Scarecrow]

I think it's worth noting that the Christian objection to "gay marriage " isn't about rights. The objection is born of love.

I'm sure those opposed to interracial marriage were saying the same thing.

 

[Scarecrow]

The foundation of the Constitution says our rights come from God and male to female marriage is required to sustain the society just as murder is outlawed but both are in the Bible. Most of our laws are founded in English law which had the Bible as the majority moral code for legislation.

Among many things that brought Rome down was the decline in sexual boundaries.

Actually Rome didn't decline or fall until after it converted to Christianity

 

[Cameron143]

The amendment clause to the 1st amendment literally says the government can't use religion to pass laws.. imagine trying to tell me I don't have a right to not practice your religion. Pretentious

I'm sure those opposed to interracial marriage were saying the same thing.

I don't understand your point.

I'm sure those opposed to interracial marriage were saying the same thing.

Some maybe. But ascribing a characteristic to a whole group is something you would probably call prejudice or racism if I were to do it but you seem to have little awareness of your own propensity to do so.
If you have an argument to make, make it. Don't suppose. Support your ideas with truth...not supposition.

 

[Gojira]

Excuse me for being a patriotic American who honors the Constitution. All those men didn't give their lives to protect the Constitution so American can become Saudi Arabia.
When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression

The founders would never have supported this. They wanted a generic form of Christianity taught in schools. They wanted a healthy, normal family teaching Godly morals to their children. Sorry, nothing about this is constitutional and in the spirit of the founding.

 

[Gojira]

you mean the baker who chose to discriminate against a minority?

The man has the right to believe the way he does. No one has any right to get between that man's soul and His Maker. Should a Jewish photographer be forced to take pictures glorifying a Nazi rally? If it's a private business, that person's thoughts and personal beliefs are sacrosanct. Any attempt by the government to tell them that their beliefs are wrong is fascism, plain and simple.

Your view is fascist. You have no tolerance for people who believe differently than you do, and believe that you have the right to ruin them for disagreeing with you. Force is the authoritarian way. Punishing "unacceptable" beliefs is the authoritarian way.

 

[Gojira]

I'm sure those opposed to interracial marriage were saying the same thing.

This is idiotic. Interracial marriage is not equivalent to same-sex marriage.

There are no significant differences between a black man and white man. But, there are scores of differences between a black man and a black woman. Sex matters.

Also, while all people are equal under the law, all behaviors are not. Homosexuality is a behavior / lifestyle. If all behavior becomes intertwined with personhood, then no law is valid.

 

[Scarecrow]

I don't understand your point.

I'm not surprised

 

[Scarecrow]

The founders would never have supported this. They wanted a generic form of Christianity taught in schools. They wanted a healthy, normal family teaching Godly morals to their children. Sorry, nothing about this is constitutional and in the spirit of the founding.

it is unlikely they would have supported emancipation, the end of slavery, racial equality, women's suffrage, direct elections, integrated schools, and a host of other things. They would recognize that times change and with that understanding they included provisions in the Constitution to recognize that fact and provisions to change the constitution.

 

[Scarecrow]

The man has the right to believe the way he does.

that is very true. But one's beliefs do not grant anyone the right to discriminate against a minority.

No one has any right to get between that man's soul and His Maker. Should a Jewish photographer be forced to take pictures glorifying a Nazi rally? If it's a private business, that person's thoughts and personal beliefs are sacrosanct. Any attempt by the government to tell them that their beliefs are wrong is fascism, plain and simple.

no one is telling anyone anything about their beliefs, People are free to believe what ever they like but that doesn't mean that business get to put out "White's only" signs no matter what they believe about black people.

Your view is fascist.

the idea that everyone is equal is about as far from fascism as you can get.

You have no tolerance for people who believe differently than you do,

I've already said people can believe what ever they choose.

Meanwhile you are supporting discrimination....so who has the tolerance problem here?

and believe that you have the right to ruin them for disagreeing with you. Force is the authoritarian way. Punishing "unacceptable" beliefs is the authoritarian way.

who have i ruined?

 

[Scarecrow]

This is idiotic. Interracial marriage is not equivalent to same-sex marriage.

sure it is. Both experienced the same discrimination based on the religious beliefs of some people.

There are no significant differences between a black man and white man. But, there are scores of differences between a black man and a black woman. Sex matters.

what does that have to do with discrimination?

Also, while all people are equal under the law, all behaviors are not. Homosexuality is a behavior / lifestyle.

false. a person's orientation gay, straight or bi is intrinsic to them and exists without any action or behavior needing to take place. This is why virgins can be heterosexual.

If all behavior becomes intertwined with personhood, then no law is valid.

You just described religion. Are you saying that discrimination based on a person's religion is acceptable?

 

[Gojira]

sure it is. Both experienced the same discrimination based on the religious beliefs of some people.

what does that have to do with discrimination?

false. a person's orientation gay, straight or bi is intrinsic to them and exists without any action or behavior needing to take place. This is why virgins can be heterosexual.


You just described religion. Are you saying that discrimination based on a person's religion is acceptable?

I'll try to address some of what you said, but I simply do not have the time you seem to have.

Equating homosexuality with race is absurd. Even if the behavior was biologically motivated -- a debatable contention -- it is still something someone does. Actions have far greater consequences than skin color. I made my point about this and you did not get it. Too bad, I'm moving on.

You say you believe that people have a right to their beliefs, but you do not. If I believe that my preparing a wedding cake for a homosexual couple aids and abets something my God disdains, you believe the State should force me to violate those beliefs. That is not merely discrimination. That's fascism, the god-state.

These various Christian service-providers did not tell the homosexuals to leave their businesses. They refused to help in a specific ceremony. Why should they be forced to participate in something that violates their beliefs? Oh, because you believe they're wrong to do so. Why do my beliefs have to be subjected to yours?

Who have you ruined? By supporting policies and politicians who believe that an American's religious beliefs are to be violated by those of a different opinion, you help to persecute others.

As for believing everyone is equal, you do not. Some, for you, get to step on the beliefs of others. That is not equality or tolerance. Quite the opposite.

I do discriminate against behavior I believe is morally objectionable. I will not support it. If you think it's morally acceptable, then you bake them a cake or design their website. I'm not going to try to ruin your business with lawsuits if you do. And, if you want to boycott me, go for it. That's freedom.

 

[Roughsoul1991]

The amendment clause to the 1st amendment literally says the government can't use religion to pass laws.. imagine trying to tell me I don't have a right to not practice your religion. Pretentious much?
I'm not saying all Christians are like this because I have plenty of Christian friends who are super chill but there's definitely a demographic in America who thinks anything less than 100% compliance or their demands equates to them being persecuted

No it does not say that lol. That is like saying you must shut your brain off before making laws. In less, you want the none religious only making laws like the atheists. But even they have religious mantra they spout and believe.

 

[Roughsoul1991]

then a trial is held to determine if said discrimination took place and just what laws were broken in engaging in that discrimination. For example in Brown v the Board of education the courts found that when the Topika Board of Education segregated students they were engaging in discrimination and violating the constitution.


and they don't have to do either. Churches are not businesses, they do not provide services to the public. A priest/minister is acting as a private citizen when he or she agrees to perform a wedding ceremony and as such they can chose who they do that for. This is why one can still hear about ministers refusing to marry an interracial couple and they are perfectly in their right to do so.

So you are not being persecuted.

Who exactly was persecuted under the Obama administration?

he was a business owner who provided a service to the public for a fee. His business was a public accommodation not private. When you open a business you are subject to the laws of the state and country and you get to serve everyone equally. The Constitution is very clear on the matter that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law even people said business owner chooses to not like. This is why we live in an age where you wont' see business posting signs saying they will only serve white people.

[/QUOTE]

(then a trial is held to determine if said discrimination took place and just what laws were broken in engaging in that discrimination. For example in Brown v the Board of education the courts found that when the Topika Board of Education segregated students they were engaging in discrimination and violating the constitution.)

So for your religious beliefs on marriage you are willing to be dragged into court everytime someone screams discrimination? Do you now how expensive this is?


(and they don't have to do either. Churches are not businesses, they do not provide services to the public. A priest/minister is acting as a private citizen when he or she agrees to perform a wedding ceremony and as such they can chose who they do that for. This is why one can still hear about ministers refusing to marry an interracial couple and they are perfectly in their right to do so.)

No but they get government protections and nonprofit tax exemptions. It has and will be abused.

(So you are not being persecuted.)

I never said that. My persecution just doesn't compare with being dragged into court, imprisoned, beaten, or killed.

(Who exactly was persecuted under the Obama administration?)

To start, https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/01/obama-administration-has-troubled-religious-liberty-legacy/

These decisions led to many Christians being dragged to court like the Baker, Florist, and the woman who refused to marry a gay couple. Also we shall not forget the harassment allowed in the military to Christians much like under Biden with the Vaccine mandate. Under Obama Iraqi and Syrian Christian refugees seeking asylum were harrassed or immediately deported while 1000s of Islamic Muslims were allowed from the same region. The Green family that owns Hobby Lobby, an arts and crafts chain, and the Hahns who own Conestoga, a cabinet making company, who had challenged the so called contraceptive mandate saying it forced them to either violate their faith or pay ruinous fines. Obamacare law that requires virtually all health care plans to cover, without co-pay, sterilizations, contraceptives, and abortion-inducing drugs.

Alot happened under those 8 years and people lost finances, time, freedom, and in the cases of the refugees, their life. If you need help remembering just google, there is a lot more.

(he was a business owner who provided a service to the public for a fee. His business was a public accommodation not private. When you open a business you are subject to the laws of the state and country and you get to serve everyone equally. The Constitution is very clear on the matter that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law even people said business owner chooses to not like. This is why we live in an age where you wont' see business posting signs saying they will only serve white people.)

Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, violated his First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion since the regulations were not applied neutrally.