[Golfingnut]

Originally Posted by rubicon

angelfox10: Certainly what you say has some validity but given the recalcitrant nature of young people I would say that despite religious belief or parental views most people form their own opinions.

I was reared strict catholic and was fortunate to have good hearted open and honest parents. Despite all of that at 17 I bolted out of the house to go my own way. I shredded everything I was raised to believe and vowed to start from the beginning. As to race I remained the same that as individuals ought to judged. so bad actors irrespective of what race or ethnicity are bad actors. As to the nature of this topic I hold no malice embrace and would defend and come to the defense of anyone who would take unfair advantage. This also has never changed even as a boy I admonition my friends when the would make fun of the kid that stuttered, etc.

What I am saying is that in most situations we eventually form our own opinions based on our experiences. I have a love-hate relationship with the church because I believe the fundamentals that formed its beginnings have been harmed by bad actors with political agendas. In my view the human race needs God or at least a higher power. Every society that moved away from that concept perished because secularism eventually creates people who only think of themselves.

In summary, I do not base my position on God or my parents opinion but on my view concerning this topic and only to the sociological aspects. For a preview of what might be just look at earlier societies and the effect of lifestyles on their great nations.

Personal Best Regards:

Rubicon

I have a small corner of my mind that believes you may be spot on. That said, because I believe America was formed albeit with several amendments to improve on the constitution, to be all inclusive with equality for all, then I cannot say all except woman or minorities or sexual orientation that different from mine, etc. etc.. It is the qualification by those in power that pick and choose who is eligible to benefit from this wonderful country that makes this argument hard to swallow.

[rubicon]

Originally Posted by Golfingnut

I have a small corner of my mind that believes you may be spot on. That said, because I believe America was formed albeit with several amendments to improve on the constitution, to be all inclusive with equality for all, then I cannot say all except woman or minorities or sexual orientation that different from mine, etc. etc.. It is the qualification by those in power that pick and choose who is eligible to benefit from this wonderful country that makes this argument hard to swallow.

golfingnut: "Its tricky this thing referred to as equality for all". Despite what politicians, experts, etc say we are not all born equal and while it is an honorable goal to right those wrongs the fact remains that limitations to nature make that goal unattainable. hence we find some folks going overboard on issues to reach an unattainable goal. Pick the subject and you can see for yourself, energy v people, rich v poor intelligent v average person skill v unskilled natural born----v struggling to be a ----- beauty v not attractive.

The cause in my view is that too many people will not embrace reality and have it work for them but ignore it and have it worked against them

From a personal point of view I think it is unfair and not equal that I wasn't a natural born good golfer...that ain't right

[oceangurl]

Wonderfully put! Thank you! gb...

[Golfingnut]

Originally Posted by rubicon

golfingnut: "Its tricky this thing referred to as equality for all". Despite what politicians, experts, etc say we are not all born equal and while it is an honorable goal to right those wrongs the fact remains that limitations to nature make that goal unattainable. hence we find some folks going overboard on issues to reach an unattainable goal. Pick the subject and you can see for yourself, energy v people, rich v poor intelligent v average person skill v unskilled natural born----v struggling to be a ----- beauty v not attractive.

The cause in my view is that too many people will not embrace reality and have it work for them but ignore it and have it worked against them

From a personal point of view I think it is unfair and not equal that I wasn't a natural born good golfer...that ain't right

I can't see anything in your post that I would disagree with ;however, natural selection like beauty or intelligence is different than not getting paid the same for the same work because you are a women or not being eligible for civil union or marriage financial benefits based on the gender of your life's partner.

[kagney123]

Originally Posted by DougB

Who's Steve?

LoL that made me laugh thanks

[Buffalo Jim]

Please reread my Post . It was not filled with " hate ". It was speaking out against the " generalized stereotyping " of a previous writer .

All I said is " I don`t care " but in effect do not " tar " me if I do not stand up and applaud which somehow seems to be a mandatory requirement or one risks being labeled as anti-gay that`s all .
Frankly , I am very very happy that this issue is being resolved because it will finally be " off the table " so that we can focus on even bigger equality issues such as improving our schools and creating a better economic environment and bringing our MIlitary home for good . So come to think of it YES , I am now standing , have removed my hat and am applauding because eventually we will be able to focus on issues which will benefit the majority not just a minority .
And heterosexuals do not have any exclusive claim to " marriage " in fact statics indicate that Heteros or as the minority call us " Breeders " have a failure rate of about 50% . Looking forward to when failed Gay Marriages begin to hit the Court system and the monied spouse says " what do you mean half ? That doesn`t apply to me " ?
So go ahead and tell me once again that I am a " hater " when all I was doing was trying to point out that the writer of the Post I was criticizing was " generalizing ".
It just seems that acceptance is not enough . One must stand up and applaud .

[Villages PL]

Last night I was listening to a program on NPR about all the lawsuits that are coming about because of religious people refusing to provide services to gays and lesbians who are getting married. For example, a baker refused to provied a wedding cake with two women on top. He said it would be against his religion. Sorry I don't remember all the different circumstances. Another one was a limo service.

It has been said on this thread, in favor of gay marriage, that people should "live and let live". Where is that attitude on the gay side? Instead of suing someone because the person happens to have strong religious convictions, why don't they just say "live and let live"? They could say, "thanks for your honesty, we'll find another baker". Or, "we'll find another limo".

"Live and let live" should be a two way street.

[ilovetv]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

Last night I was listening to a program on NPR about all the lawsuits that are coming about because of religious people refusing to provide services to gays who are getting married. For example, a baker refused to provied a wedding cake with two women on top. He said it would be against his religion. Sorry I don't remember all the different circumstances. Another one was a limo service.

It has been said on this thread, in favor of gay marriage, that people should "live and let live". Where is that attitude on the gay side? Instead of suing someone because the person happens to have strong religious convictions, why don't they just say "live and let live"? They could say, "thanks for your honesty, we'll find another baker". Or, "we'll find another limo".

"Live and let live" should be a two way street.

This is so accurate. I read this somewhere else about other wedding services providers too.

And since when is it a civil rights and discrimination action when the desired purchase is between a buyer and a vendor who is not a government-sector nor government contractor?

We're supposed to have a free-enterprise system in which the buyer is free to buy or walk away, and the seller is free to produce or not produce, market and sell if he so chooses.

If the private sector baker does not want to put out and sell a cake that to him would portray his products and services badly, then that is his choice to make.

If a wedding DJ believes it mocks God's authority and commandments to enable homosexual couples to be dancing and smooching in front of him for hours, then that is his call to make.

Suing people for such things would be childish at best and punitive at worst. And I think "punitive" is what it is ALL about.

[Maryland Girl]

These type of issues should not be federalized. Under the Constitution, regulation of marriage contracts was given to the states. Those states that have added constitutional amendments to prohibit gay marriage (not civil unions) will now be under a slew of litigation since the Court overruled Prop 8 in California. We now have a very culturally fractured country with, I believe, 12 states recognizing gay marriage and 36 or 37 not recognizing it. The Supreme Court itself now appears as fractured. Justice Scalia said in his dissent that the majority opinion made opponents of gay marriage appear as less than human.

Since the Supreme Court handed down Roe v Wade, there has been division with both sides going to extremes, no abortion in any case and no limit on late term abortions. Personally, I don't believe most people opposed to gay marriage on the grounds it goes against the natural law of God will ever be convinced to become a supporter. Hence, we will have many many years of unrest and litigation back and forth as we have now with abortion with those on both sides taking extreme positions. We are already seeing this with discrimination suits against bakers, etc. who refuse to be involved in gay marriages.

[CFrance]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

Last night I was listening to a program on NPR about all the lawsuits that are coming about because of religious people refusing to provide services to gays who are getting married. For example, a baker refused to provied a wedding cake with two women on top. He said it would be against his religion. Sorry I don't remember all the different circumstances. Another one was a limo service.

It has been said on this thread, in favor of gay marriage, that people should "live and let live". Where is that attitude on the gay side? Instead of suing someone because the person happens to have strong religious convictions, why don't they just say "live and let live"? They could say, "thanks for your honesty, we'll find another baker". Or, "we'll find another limo".

"Live and let live" should be a two way street.

But... it certainly wasn't okay for people back in the day to refuse to serve/provide services for African Americans because they were black. Live and let live was not right back then. It allowed discrimination to thrive. There was a lot of work and protests and lawsuits on their part to get this changed.

Maybe the reasons for the lawsuits now are the same--to establish and protect rights, define them through the law.

[allus70]

"Last night I was listening to a program on NPR about all the lawsuits that are coming about because of religious people refusing to provide services to gays who are getting married. For example, a baker refused to provied a wedding cake with two women on top. He said it would be against his religion. Sorry I don't remember all the different circumstances. Another one was a limo service.

It has been said on this thread, in favor of gay marriage, that people should "live and let live". Where is that attitude on the gay side? Instead of suing someone because the person happens to have strong religious convictions, why don't they just say "live and let live"? They could say, "thanks for your honesty, we'll find another baker". Or, "we'll find another limo".

"Live and let live" should be a two way street"

Let me ask the same question with a little twist. Supposed an interracial or were getting married and they went to a bakery to buy a wedding cake. Suppose the baker said I do not approve of interracial couples getting married because it contradicts my core beliefs, and I won't bake you a cake.
Would it be OK for that couple to say, "Thank you for your honesty" and walk away and look for another baker? Or should they have the same rights as you and I, assuming we don't contradict the baker's beliefs.

[angiefox10]

I'm posting this link again as I don't think anyone watched it... or watched it to the end.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8JsRx2lois

These conversations are no different than the conversations we were having during the Civil Rights Act.

Why can gays sue? Because it's illegal to discriminate!

Another little known fact... Gays have been having weddings for many years. Wedding with big receptions and honeymoons! Yep... right under your noses. And the smart money is on the vendors who have been servicing them.



For over 30 years we had a tax business.... for all the tax people who didn't want to handle these couples... we thank them!

Yep... they will sue for discrimination. They won't get much... but people will learn to not try to put them in the back of the bus!

Trust me when I tell you, most of you don't know who the gays are...Yes... you can pick out some of the "butch" women and the "feminine" men... but not the rest! You have NO idea. they are your friends, co-workers and family.... They are your neighbors and even the people you go to church with. Trust me.... no one has "gaydar" good enough to tell who is and who isn't.

[ilovetv]

Originally Posted by allus70

"Last night I was listening to a program on NPR about all the lawsuits that are coming about because of religious people refusing to provide services to gays who are getting married. For example, a baker refused to provied a wedding cake with two women on top. He said it would be against his religion. Sorry I don't remember all the different circumstances. Another one was a limo service.

It has been said on this thread, in favor of gay marriage, that people should "live and let live". Where is that attitude on the gay side? Instead of suing someone because the person happens to have strong religious convictions, why don't they just say "live and let live"? They could say, "thanks for your honesty, we'll find another baker". Or, "we'll find another limo".

"Live and let live" should be a two way street"

Let me ask the same question with a little twist. Supposed an interracial or were getting married and they went to a bakery to buy a wedding cake. Suppose the baker said I do not approve of interracial couples getting married because it contradicts my core beliefs, and I won't bake you a cake.

Would it be OK for that couple to say, "Thank you for your honesty" and walk away and look for another baker? Or should they have the same rights as you and I, assuming we don't contradict the baker's beliefs.

We don't have "rights" to order a baker or manufacturer to fabricate something that is not out there in the display case.

[jojoin]

Originally Posted by Monkei

Why did God create gay people? I am assuming God is incapable of making a mistake, so Gay and lesbian men and women must have been of his grand plan.

Just wondering where in the Bible did you find this to be part of GOD's grand plan?
GOD allows things to happen, but this does not mean it is his will. GOD allows things to happen because he gives mankind free will to do as we please; to make our own choices which includes deciding whether we want to believe in him and his word. But, he also tells us there are consequences to our actions when we turn against his word, and decide to follow our own secular path. I always find it interesting that men/women think they are smarter than GOD.

[CFrance]

Originally Posted by ilovetv

We don't have "rights" to order a baker or manufacturer to fabricate something that is not out there in the display case.

I wonder if you are splitting hairs. The baker makes wedding cakes. Lots of people order unique decorations on wedding cakes that are not out there in the display case.