News Forum - Constitutional Court ruling on marriage a setback for same-sex couples

[longwood50]

On 11/23/2021 at 8:01 AM, Stonker said:

But who's waving anything in your face?

Who's expecting you to revel in anything or shoving anything down your throat

> Two lines of insults have been removed by Admin<

Here is just one example of the "lifestyle" being SHOVED DOWN EVERYONES THROAT.  USA tax dollars going "but only to organizations that are REQUIRED to include PRE SCHOOL LGTBQ curriculum.  If that is not the federal government both mandating, promoting, and shoving down the throats of everyone, I don't know what it. 

https://mcutimes.com/bidens-reconstruction-of-better-free-preschool-forces-lgbtq-activist-curriculum-on-faith-groups/

Edited November 25, 2021 by Andrew Reeve
> Two lines of insults have been removed by Admin<

[longwood50]

1 minute ago, longwood50 said:

But who's waving anything in your face?

You said that the U.S. Embassy Gay Flag was insignificant and not promoting the gay lifestyle

1. Flags are symbolic of each nation and are meant to garner respect and alligiance
2. If Flags are so unimportant why was there such an outrage over confederate flags in the USA as critics say they were racist.

3. Why is it that we fly a flag at half mast to honor someone who is deceased.
4. Why do we have flag draped coffins if flags are not suppose to engender reverence. 


Even Thailand is currently having the police investigate Ms. Thailand for inadvertently stepping on the blue portion of the Thai Flag symbolic to the Thai monarchy and saying that symbolized disrespect. 

As for the U.S. embassies.  We honor the following people with 1 day each in the USA.  Martin Luther King, and Washington/Jefferson.  But somehow the embassies were to fly the flag for an entire month. 

Additionally, it is flag protocol that 1. The USA flag be the largest flag on any embassy and that it flies alone.  If a flag of a foreign country is to fly, it must be smaller than the USA flag, lower in height, and not flown on the same lanyard. 

ALL OF THOSE MANDATED PROTOCALS were violated with the gay flag.  1. Some Gay Flags were larger than the USA flag, 2. Some gay flags flew above the USA flag. and 3. Many gay flags flew from the same lanyard.  That means that the LGTBQ was honored above even the prestige given to any other country in the world.  That is a clear message that we were suppose to honor and salute it.  

I repeat, I don't care what others do.  It is you who seem to be consumed with the subject.  I only say, government has no business promoting it, and certainly no business mandating it be taught 

[Stonker]

3 hours ago, longwood50 said:

You said that the U.S. Embassy Gay Flag was insignificant and not promoting the gay lifestyle

No I didn't.

[JohninDublin]

On 11/20/2021 at 5:42 AM, longwood50 said:

To beat a dead horse, whether Thailand, or any other country I see no problem with granting a "civil union" that conveys all the rights of a marriage but is termed a "civil union" and not a marriage.   

Marriage has been defined for centuries as a union between one man and one woman.  The idea that somehow that termed should no include same sex is not about "equal rights" it is about the public's embrace of that lifestyle. 

I agree with much of what you say, but to add to what you say, regarding "embrace of that lifestyle", I recall two cases regarding bakers who refused to make gay wedding cakes. One was in the US where the claimant was upheld on a technicality. The other was in N.Ireland where the claimant lost and it is currently being appealed at the European Court of Human Rights. 

Before expressing my opinions on the decision, I will admit I am an atheist so we can get any accusations of bias out of the way.

Both cases related to bakers who had religious beliefs that led them to antipathy towards homosexuality. The first thing that occurs to me is that in the past, I have heard gays invoke the power of the "Pink Pound". Basically, that is about boycotting businesses that are not gay friendly. If I were the customer in either case, I'd certainly take my pink pound elsewhere. OTOH, if the bakers happened to discover I was gay and refused me any service,  because of that, it would be a different matter. I can't help my sexuality and as long as I was not flaunting it the annoyance of other customers, then I'd consider I was the victim of bigotry rather than religious beliefs.

So it comes down to if the baker is still serving me, but won't provide me with a customised wedding cake because of his religious principles, why can't I respect his beliefs? I should say that in both cases the bakers were amenable to providing a wedding cake, but refused to customise it with any thing that suggested it was for a gay wedding.

So back your comment about "embrace". I think there will be those in the gay community who will not feel "fully embraced" until they can force others to ignore their religious beliefs. The fact that hetero couples can and do take part in civil ceremonies is evidence in my view that these ceremonies are not discriminatory towards gays.

[Marc26]

2 hours ago, JohninDubin said:

I agree with much of what you say, but to add to what you say, regarding "embrace of that lifestyle", I recall two cases regarding bakers who refused to make gay wedding cakes. One was in the US where the claimant was upheld on a technicality. The other was in N.Ireland where the claimant lost and it is currently being appealed at the European Court of Human Rights. 

Before expressing my opinions on the decision, I will admit I am an atheist so we can get any accusations of bias out of the way.

Both cases related to bakers who had religious beliefs that led them to antipathy towards homosexuality. The first thing that occurs to me is that in the past, I have heard gays invoke the power of the "Pink Pound". Basically, that is about boycotting businesses that are not gay friendly. If I were the customer in either case, I'd certainly take my pink pound elsewhere. OTOH, if the bakers happened to discover I was gay and refused me any service,  because of that, it would be a different matter. I can't help my sexuality and as long as I was not flaunting it the annoyance of other customers, then I'd consider I was the victim of bigotry rather than religious beliefs.

So it comes down to if the baker is still serving me, but won't provide me with a customised wedding cake because of his religious principles, why can't I respect his beliefs? I should say that in both cases the bakers were amenable to providing a wedding cake, but refused to customise it with any thing that suggested it was for a gay wedding.

So back your comment about "embrace". I think there will be those in the gay community who will not feel "fully embraced" until they can force others to ignore their religious beliefs. The fact that hetero couples can and do take part in civil ceremonies is evidence in my view that these ceremonies are not discriminatory towards gays.

I despise Christians

 

But, I think any private business can decide who they serve 

 

Customers then can make a decision to boycott them because of their policies towards certain customers 

[JohninDublin]

1 hour ago, Marc26 said:

I despise Christians

But, I think any private business can decide who they serve 

Customers then can make a decision to boycott them because of their policies towards certain customers 

I've met plenty of them who show tolerance to those who do not fit the Xian profile. OTOH, those who seek services from people knowing that they are trying to compromise someone's religious beliefs are just another form of troll. 

The problem about despising Xians is intolerance breeds intolerance. As soon as (eg) atheists decide not to defend others right to their beliefs, then why should atheists be entitled to the protection of their beliefs?

Personally, I like the late Bill Hicks' approach to religious tolerance. As he was leaving a show in some Deep South Bible Belt town, he was corralled by a bunch of rednecks who said to him, "We're Christians and we don't like what you said about Christians in your routine". Hicks replied, "In that case you should do what Jesus would do, and forgive me".

 

[Marc26]

2 hours ago, JohninDubin said:

I've met plenty of them who show tolerance to those who do not fit the Xian profile. OTOH, those who seek services from people knowing that they are trying to compromise someone's religious beliefs are just another form of troll. 

The problem about despising Xians is intolerance breeds intolerance. As soon as (eg) atheists decide not to defend others right to their beliefs, then why should atheists be entitled to the protection of their beliefs?

Personally, I like the late Bill Hicks' approach to religious tolerance. As he was leaving a show in some Deep South Bible Belt town, he was corralled by a bunch of rednecks who said to him, "We're Christians and we don't like what you said about Christians in your routine". Hicks replied, "In that case you should do what Jesus would do, and forgive me".

I despise Christians because they push their religion on others 

 

Do whatever you want

Don't push it on me

 

Oh and they are hypocritical scum....

[Bluesofa]

11 minutes ago, Marc26 said:

I despise Christians because they push their religion on others 

Do whatever you want

Don't push it on me

Oh and they are hypocritical scum....

To me that seems something of a generalisation.
I'm an atheist. but I can say that christians I know haven't pushed their religion on me.

Apart from the door-to-door ones in the past. Some jehoover's witnesses came to the door once, I told them I was in a rush to go out to give blood.

[Faraday]

42 minutes ago, Bluesofa said:

I'm an atheist

Jesus loves you , my Brother, don't worry....

 

 

[Stonker]

18 hours ago, longwood50 said:

> Two lines of insults have been removed by Admin<

Here is just one example of the "lifestyle" being SHOVED DOWN EVERYONES THROAT.  USA tax dollars going "but only to organizations that are REQUIRED to include PRE SCHOOL LGTBQ curriculum.  If that is not the federal government both mandating, promoting, and shoving down the throats of everyone, I don't know what it. 

https://mcutimes.com/bidens-reconstruction-of-better-free-preschool-forces-lgbtq-activist-curriculum-on-faith-groups/

Are you at pre-school?

If not, nothing's being "shoved down your throat", and neither is it being forced on pre-schools.

If pre-schools don't want it, they simply don't accept the free package it's part of.

[Stonker]

18 hours ago, longwood50 said:

You said that the U.S. Embassy Gay Flag was insignificant and not promoting the gay lifestyle

1. Flags are symbolic of each nation and are meant to garner respect and alligiance
2. If Flags are so unimportant why was there such an outrage over confederate flags in the USA as critics say they were racist.

3. Why is it that we fly a flag at half mast to honor someone who is deceased.
4. Why do we have flag draped coffins if flags are not suppose to engender reverence. 

Apart from my not having said or even suggested what you claim, despite the rant you don't seem to have any idea at all what a flag is for.

1. No flags are not "meant to garner respect and allegiance" of themselves - the respect and allegiance (or hatred) is to what they represent.

2. I've never said or suggested flags are "unimportant". See 1.

3. Bizarre question. As a sign of respect.

4. You appear to have never served in the military or to understand why a coffin may be draped in a flag. The flag isn't there to "engender reverence" in any way but to symbolize what the individual either died for or served.

19 hours ago, longwood50 said:

for the U.S. embassies.  We honor the following people with 1 day each in the USA.  Martin Luther King, and Washington/Jefferson.  But somehow the embassies were to fly the flag for an entire month. 

Totally incorrect and untrue.

No US embassies were / are required to fly a "gay flag" at all. Those that want to and ask permission can, just as permission can be granted to fly any flag if requested and approved, but in this case it's for a maximum of one month, not permanently.

19 hours ago, longwood50 said:

ALL OF THOSE MANDATED PROTOCALS were violated with the gay flag.  1. Some Gay Flags were larger than the USA flag, 2. Some gay flags flew above the USA flag. and 3. Many gay flags flew from the same lanyard.  That means that the LGTBQ was honored above even the prestige given to any other country in the world.  That is a clear message that we were suppose to honor and salute it.  

Do you have any evidence for any of that?

Any at all?

Can you name any embassy where that happened?

Your photo clearly doesn't support it, wherever it was taken, as it clearly shows the three flags on separate halyards on a nautical flag pole, all apparently the same size allowing for perspective (with the nearest being bigger and the furthest smallest) and for some reason the central (US) flag isn't at the top of the pole as it should be, nor is it at half-mast.

[Dedinbed]

7 hours ago, Bluesofa said:

I'm an atheist.

My mate is one of those and a dyslexic also and doesn't believe there is one true dog .. 

[Stonker]

13 hours ago, JohninDubin said:

I agree with much of what you say, but to add to what you say, regarding "embrace of that lifestyle", I recall two cases regarding bakers who refused to make gay wedding cakes. One was in the US where the claimant was upheld on a technicality. The other was in N.Ireland where the claimant lost and it is currently being appealed at the European Court of Human Rights. 

Before expressing my opinions on the decision, I will admit I am an atheist so we can get any accusations of bias out of the way.

Both cases related to bakers who had religious beliefs that led them to antipathy towards homosexuality. The first thing that occurs to me is that in the past, I have heard gays invoke the power of the "Pink Pound". Basically, that is about boycotting businesses that are not gay friendly. If I were the customer in either case, I'd certainly take my pink pound elsewhere. OTOH, if the bakers happened to discover I was gay and refused me any service,  because of that, it would be a different matter. I can't help my sexuality and as long as I was not flaunting it the annoyance of other customers, then I'd consider I was the victim of bigotry rather than religious beliefs.

So it comes down to if the baker is still serving me, but won't provide me with a customised wedding cake because of his religious principles, why can't I respect his beliefs? I should say that in both cases the bakers were amenable to providing a wedding cake, but refused to customise it with any thing that suggested it was for a gay wedding.

Agree with you absolutely, @JohninDubin.

While it's fine to legislate that people shouldn't be discriminated against because of their race, ethnicity, sexual preference, gender, etc, it's taking things way beyond absurd to say that people should have to make things they don't want to, whether it's a baker making a cake featuring two men getting married or a painter painting a picture of a man (or woman) having sex with a horse.

Should a chef have to make an omelette laced with arsenic, or an electrician make a tilt switch he suspects is for a bomb?

Sometimes anti-discrimination legislation can go way beyond anything that's rational or reasonable.

[Stonker]

14 hours ago, JohninDubin said:

I think there will be those in the gay community who will not feel "fully embraced" until they can force others to ignore their religious beliefs. 

Quite possibly, even probably, but I don't know what point you're trying to make with that. 

Who's being forced to "fully embrace" the gay community or anyone in it?

All anyone's required to do anywhere is to observe the law, including laws against discrimination where they've been passed - or laws for discrimination, for that matter.

This whole issue of anyone being forced to "embrace" homosexuality is just utter, fabricated nonsense.

Is anyone forced to "embrace" chickens not being chlorinated? 

Depending on where you are, you may have to "embrace" Christmas, the Passover, or Ramadan regardless of your own beliefs but what country has ever forced anyone to "embrace" homosexuality or is remotely likely to?

[Stonker]

15 hours ago, JohninDubin said:

The fact that hetero couples can and do take part in civil ceremonies is evidence in my view that these ceremonies are not discriminatory towards gays.

They're discriminatory when gays can't take part in the same civil ceremonies !

Most countries have civil marriage with no religious element  (less than 20 countries only allow religious marriages), but barely a quarter of the countries in the world recognise / allow same-sex marriage / partnerships / unions.

How can that not be discriminatory?

 

[Bluesofa]

1 hour ago, Dedinbed said:

My mate is one of those and a dyslexic also and doesn't believe there is one true dog .. 

Quite. You never know where it will lead.

[Dedinbed]

47 minutes ago, Bluesofa said:

Quite. You never know where it will lead.

Indeed .. I had to paws for thought there incase you were trying to collar me .. 

[longwood50]

23 hours ago, Stonker said:

Who's being forced to "fully embrace" the gay community or anyone in it?

As I have repeatedly said. I am for "equal" protection for everyone but "special rights" for no one. 

When you have laws passed that "require" race or LGTB representation on public boards that is forcing. 

When you have only 1 group that I can find the LGTB flag ever being flown over a US embassy that is not tolerance that is advocacy and endorsement

When you have specific legislation that doles out federal dollars to pre school facilities but mandates that they have LGTB curriculum that is not tolerance that is mandated coercion

If similar legislation was passed but required curriculum in Christian Values, or pro or anti abortion you would decry it as discriminatory.   

Heck court rooms are being stripped from having the 10 commandments, statues of people such as Teddy Roosevelt are being removed from public locations, confederate flags are being demanded be removed because they supposedly convey a racist message, Christmas nativity displays must be removed from public facilities, it is no longer considered by some to say Merry Christmas because "some" find the word Christ in it offensive. 

Yet you find no hypocrisy and outright indoctrination with legislation that forces LGTB curriculum on Pre school children or they lose federal grant money.  You find it is not advocacy and indoctrination to fly the gay pride flag over USA embassies for one month each year.  I can assure you that if the "chastity flag" was flown over the US embassies the hew and cry would be that the government has no business advocating sexual behavior.  And no they don't 

Edited November 27, 2021 by longwood50

[Stonker]

17 minutes ago, longwood50 said:

As I have repeatedly said. I am for "equal" protection for everyone but "special rights" for no one. 

When you have laws passed that "require" race or LGTB representation on public boards that is forcing. 

When you have only 1 group that I can find the LGTB flag ever being flown over a US embassy that is not tolerance that is advocacy and endorsement

When you have specific legislation that doles out federal dollars to pre school facilities but mandates that they have LGTB curriculum that is not tolerance that is mandated coercion

If similar legislation was passed but required curriculum in Christian Values, or pro or anti abortion you would decry it as discriminatory.   

Heck court rooms are being stripped from having the 10 commandments, statues of people such as Teddy Roosevelt are being removed from public locations, confederate flags are being demanded be removed because they supposedly convey a racist message, Christmas nativity displays must be removed from public facilities, it is no longer considered by some to say Merry Christmas because "some" find the word Christ in it offensive. 

Yet you find no hypocrisy and outright indoctrination with legislation that forces LGTB curriculum on Pre school children or they lose federal grant money.  You find it is not advocacy and indoctrination to fly the gay pride flag over USA embassies for one month each year.  I can assure you that if the "chastity flag" was flown over the US embassies the hew and cry would be that the government has no business advocating sexual behavior.  And no they don't 

You just keeping repeating the same mantra and the same rant, with no evidence to support anything you say when asked for anything that supports anything you've claimed when asked, instead just going on to rant and rail against something else you object to.

Give some evidence to support any of your claims which I've said aren't correct, and I'll be happy to try to explain things to you rationally, but otherwise it's like kicking water uphill.

[longwood50]

5 hours ago, Stonker said:

be happy to try to explain things to you rationally,

I would be happy to have an intelligent conversation with you but obviously that is impossible.  You are obviously either unable to rationally look at the evidence and or you are in denial.  

You asked for proof well I have shown it. 

1. When laws are passed not for the benefit of all but to force admittance on to the private boards of companies of LGTB and you find that does not demonstrate government forcing a belief system down others.

2. When the US government openly flies the Gay flag bigger, higher, and for a longer period of time that any other cause or county and you do not find that is not trying to have people pledge alliance and embrace the lifestyle

3. The equal protection clause of the constitution is suppose to provide equal rights to all and is suppose to allow any to enjoy their rights so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.  But according to your rationality, the rights of the baker who exercised his right to follow his religious beliefs and not bake a cake should be quashed because the the right of the gay person to "force" him to relinquish his religious beliefs is somehow OK.  In your mind that does not show people are not just asked for the tolerance and non discrimination of the lifestyle but that they must embrace it even if they must sacrifice their values because obviously the values of those who follow the LGTB mindset is somehow more noble, valued, and protected the the rights of those who don't have that similar mindset. 

As previously mentioned ignorance can be educated and insanity medicated.  What you suffer from is beyond treatment.  If similar laws, lawsuits or displays/flags were placed on public buildings advocating one specific group such as the Right to Life, Christian Fellowship, or any other supporting "traditional" values, it would be blasted as discriminatory.  However not so with the LGTB community.  That sir is not equality that is blatant favoritism. 

[Stonker]

5 hours ago, longwood50 said:

I would be happy to have an intelligent conversation with you but obviously that is impossible.  You are obviously either unable to rationally look at the evidence and or you are in denial.  

You asked for proof well I have shown it. 

1. When laws are passed not for the benefit of all but to force admittance on to the private boards of companies of LGTB and you find that does not demonstrate government forcing a belief system down others.

2. When the US government openly flies the Gay flag bigger, higher, and for a longer period of time that any other cause or county and you do not find that is not trying to have people pledge alliance and embrace the lifestyle

3. The equal protection clause of the constitution is suppose to provide equal rights to all and is suppose to allow any to enjoy their rights so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.  But according to your rationality, the rights of the baker who exercised his right to follow his religious beliefs and not bake a cake should be quashed because the the right of the gay person to "force" him to relinquish his religious beliefs is somehow OK.  In your mind that does not show people are not just asked for the tolerance and non discrimination of the lifestyle but that they must embrace it even if they must sacrifice their values because obviously the values of those who follow the LGTB mindset is somehow more noble, valued, and protected the the rights of those who don't have that similar mindset. 

As previously mentioned ignorance can be educated and insanity medicated.  What you suffer from is beyond treatment.  If similar laws, lawsuits or displays/flags were placed on public buildings advocating one specific group such as the Right to Life, Christian Fellowship, or any other supporting "traditional" values, it would be blasted as discriminatory.  However not so with the LGTB community.  That sir is not equality that is blatant favoritism. 

OK, I'll ignore the jibes and take each point in turn.

5 hours ago, longwood50 said:

You asked for proof well I have shown it.

When?

Where?

You've never answered a single question I asked you .

5 hours ago, longwood50 said:

1. When laws are passed not for the benefit of all but to force admittance on to the private boards of companies of LGTB and you find that does not demonstrate government forcing a belief system down others.

That's never been discussed, nor is it anything to do with the thread or topic.

5 hours ago, longwood50 said:

2.  When the US government openly flies the Gay flag bigger, higher, and for a longer period of time that any other cause or county and you do not find that is not trying to have people pledge alliance and embrace the lifestyle

So you keep saying, but despite being asked you've never provided a shred of evidence to support it.

You produced one photo with nothing to show where or when it was taken or what of, showing three flags which appear to be of equal size given the perspective, where the central (US) flag has yet to be pulled to the top of the flagpole and is below half mast.

For your information, it wasn't taken at an Embassy at all, but was taken at the Stonewall National Monument in NYC, on June 4 2019, so during the Trump administration and before any Embassies had been granted any such permission.

Nothing to do with anything you claimed at all.

5 hours ago, longwood50 said:

3.  The equal protection clause of the constitution is suppose to provide equal rights to all and is suppose to allow any to enjoy their rights so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.  But according to your rationality, the rights of the baker who exercised his right to follow his religious beliefs and not bake a cake should be quashed because the the right of the gay person to "force" him to relinquish his religious beliefs is somehow OK.  In your mind that does not show people are not just asked for the tolerance and non discrimination of the lifestyle but that they must embrace it even if they must sacrifice their values because obviously the values of those who follow the LGTB mindset is somehow more noble, valued, and protected the the rights of those who don't have that similar mindset

It's hard to know what to say to that, since I actually said the complete reverse to what you've just said I did - very clearly:

"it's taking things way beyond absurd to say that people should have to make things they don't want to, whether it's a baker making a cake featuring two men getting married or a painter painting a picture of a man (or woman) having sex with a horse.

Should a chef have to make an omelette laced with arsenic, or an electrician make a tilt switch he suspects is for a bomb?

Sometimes anti-discrimination legislation can go way beyond anything that's rational or reasonable".

5 hours ago, longwood50 said:

 

As previously mentioned ignorance can be educated and insanity medicated.  What you suffer from is beyond treatment.  If similar laws, lawsuits or displays/flags were placed on public buildings advocating one specific group such as the Right to Life, Christian Fellowship, or any other supporting "traditional" values, it would be blasted as discriminatory.  However not so with the LGTB community.  That sir is not equality that is blatant favoritism.

 

If that had anything to do with the topic or the thread I'd reply to it, but it doesn't.

 

 

[longwood50]