(04-03-2015 07:55 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 12:13 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 05:32 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The long term objective is to create a situation where churches can be compelled to marry gay couples, even if it is contrary to their religious beliefs. The strategy is to force more and more businesses to serve gays while eliminating any distinctions pertaining to religion (such as we see with universities like Vanderbilt requiring Christian student organizations to admit non-Christians and to allow them to serve as officers). I am a supporter of gay rights generally, but I also believe that some accommodation should be made to sincerely held religious beliefs. That's why I have posed the question to radical gay rights supporters about where the equities balance out. What consideration, if any, should be given to sincerely held religious beliefs?

I'd disagree with that first sentence. I know that it's what many social conservatives want you to believe, but we have seen from history that it's incorrect.

No, we haven't seen that. And the example you cite doesn't support your assertion, for many reasons.

Actually, I think most of us in the LGBT movement are good with the ruling in Dale v Boy Scouts. No state funding/subsidies or endorsement, no commercial activity...no state level compulsion.

(04-03-2015 01:04 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Actually, I think most of us in the LGBT movement are good with the ruling in Dale v Boy Scouts

For now....

I'm actually pretty happy with that, but I don't think LGBT activists are.

It's hard to believe how incredibly hateful these activists really are. I mean.....wow.

Fiorina Lays Into Apple CEO Tim Cook Over Indiana Religious Freedom Law Hypocrisy…



Nailed it.

Quote:Former Hewlett-Packard chief Carly Fiorina on Thursday blasted Apple CEO Tim Cook’s opposition to Indiana’s religious freedom law as “hypocrisy.”

Fiorina, a potential 2016 GOP presidential contender, said Cook had a double standard and cited Apple’s operations in other countries with controversial laws about gays and women in an interview with The Wall Street Journal.

“When Tim Cook is upset about all the places that he does business because of the way they treat gays and women, he needs to withdraw from 90% of the markets that he’s in, including China and Saudi Arabia,” Fiorina argued. “But I don’t hear him being upset about that.”

Fiorina said his stance exposed a “level of hypocrisy here that is really unfortunate.”
She added that Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act contained “nothing objectionable” and that Cook’s criticism stemmed from “narrow special interests” rather than reality.

“I think this is a ginned-up controversy by people who play identity politics that has divided the nation in a way that is really unhelpful,” Fiorina added.

Cook, who came out as gay last year, criticized the Indiana measure when it was signed into law last week. The CEO said it ran counter to Apple’s policies on tolerance.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-r...us-freedom

(04-03-2015 04:51 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  Fiorina Lays Into Apple CEO Tim Cook Over Indiana Religious Freedom Law Hypocrisy…



Nailed it.

Quote:Former Hewlett-Packard chief Carly Fiorina on Thursday blasted Apple CEO Tim Cook’s opposition to Indiana’s religious freedom law as “hypocrisy.”

Fiorina, a potential 2016 GOP presidential contender, said Cook had a double standard and cited Apple’s operations in other countries with controversial laws about gays and women in an interview with The Wall Street Journal.

“When Tim Cook is upset about all the places that he does business because of the way they treat gays and women, he needs to withdraw from 90% of the markets that he’s in, including China and Saudi Arabia,” Fiorina argued. “But I don’t hear him being upset about that.”

Fiorina said his stance exposed a “level of hypocrisy here that is really unfortunate.”
She added that Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act contained “nothing objectionable” and that Cook’s criticism stemmed from “narrow special interests” rather than reality.

“I think this is a ginned-up controversy by people who play identity politics that has divided the nation in a way that is really unhelpful,” Fiorina added.

Cook, who came out as gay last year, criticized the Indiana measure when it was signed into law last week. The CEO said it ran counter to Apple’s policies on tolerance.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-r...us-freedom

There's a difference between selling a product somewhere and employing persons somewhere.

---

If you want to play that....then go to Michael's or Hobby Lobby. How much of the crap they sell is made by an abortion mandating regime?

(04-03-2015 01:52 PM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  It's hard to believe how incredibly hateful these activists really are. I mean.....wow.

I know, people like Tony Perkins of the FRC, or the AFA, both of whom support the legality of criminal penalties for being Gay are pretty hateful. By the way, BOTH were represented at Gov. Pence's signing ceremony.

(04-03-2015 01:33 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-03-2015 01:04 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Actually, I think most of us in the LGBT movement are good with the ruling in Dale v Boy Scouts

For now....

I'm actually pretty happy with that, but I don't think LGBT activists are.

But the activists are by very definition, extremists among their own movement. How many millions of Americans must disagree with the law in Indiana before you agree that pointing to the most extreme portions of that group and painting them as indicative of the entirety, is wrong? It is absolutely no different than pointing to members of the WBC as indicative of those supporting this sort of legislation, which would be entirely unfair.

I am still amazed that so much time and effort is spent in America dealing with the needs and wants of such a small segment of the population. Something tell me no matter what we do....they will never be happy.

Nothing is filled with more hate or violence than a leftist protest. They play rollerball and conservatives play badminton.

(04-04-2015 08:15 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I am still amazed that so much time and effort is spent in America dealing with the needs and wants of such a small segment of the population. Something tell me no matter what we do....they will never be happy.

Half of that time and effort is spent with the backlash. I don't think they'd be very noticeable if it weren't for the equal but opposite reaction.

(04-04-2015 08:15 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I am still amazed that so much time and effort is spent in America dealing with the needs and wants of such a small segment of the population. Something tell me no matter what we do....they will never be happy.

Why is a majority of the news about minorities?

(04-04-2015 09:17 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 08:15 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I am still amazed that so much time and effort is spent in America dealing with the needs and wants of such a small segment of the population. Something tell me no matter what we do....they will never be happy.

Why is a majority of the news about minorities?

Could it be that the majority of the news you don't like is about minorities?

It's only human to perceive that things you feel negatively about are more numerous than they really are.

I really don't have a problem with the idea that if you hold yourself out as a business, you must serve everybody willing to pay your price.

My problem is that I don't think the objective is to stop at commercial activity. The ultimate objective is a court order that churches have to conduct gay marriages regardless of their religious tenets. This is why I posed the question earlier about weighing the equities between gay rights and sincerely held religious beliefs.

I would be totally supportive of a statute that said on the one hand you can't discriminate against gays in commercial businesses, but on the other hand the right of a church to set its doctrine is not subject to statute or litigation. That is the kind of separation of church and state that I support, and that I believe the founders intended. For the life of me, I can't understand why a gay couple would WANT to get married in a church that refused to perform same-sex weddings (or for that matter why they would want a wedding cake from a gay-unfriendly baker).

(04-04-2015 09:38 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 09:17 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 08:15 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  I am still amazed that so much time and effort is spent in America dealing with the needs and wants of such a small segment of the population. Something tell me no matter what we do....they will never be happy.

Why is a majority of the news about minorities?

Could it be that the majority of the news you don't like is about minorities?

It's only human to perceive that things you feel negatively about are more numerous than they really are.

I don't know, but I think there's some truth about there being a "silent majority".

(04-04-2015 09:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I really don't have a problem with the idea that if you hold yourself out as a business, you must serve everybody willing to pay your price.

My problem is that I don't think the objective is to stop at commercial activity. The ultimate objective is a court order that churches have to conduct gay marriages regardless of their religious tenets. This is why I posed the question earlier about weighing the equities between gay rights and sincerely held religious beliefs.

I would be totally supportive of a statute that said on the one hand you can't discriminate against gays in commercial businesses, but on the other hand the right of a church to set its doctrine is not subject to statute or litigation. That is the kind of separation of church and state that I support, and that I believe the founders intended. For the life of me, I can't understand why a gay couple would WANT to get married in a church that refused to perform same-sex weddings (or for that matter why they would want a wedding cake from a gay-unfriendly baker).

I don't see that. What I see is the following:

1) The Principle in Dale v Boy Scouts holds.
2) But no discriminatory group or organization can have any benefit from the state
3) Private clubs are prohibited from engaging in commerce. Including commercial real estate holdings

---

Why should Joel Osteen have a property tax exemption on his mansions? Or Second Baptist Church be allowed to own and operate shopping centers containing a Cafe Express tax free? What benefit accrues to the taxpayers from River Oaks Country Club's tax deductible status?

---

By the way, much of this wouldn't be a problem if the Federal government had a law expressly forbidding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for all commercial entities, all recipients of taxpayer dollars or subsidies, in housing, and in benefits.

So, Tom, you believe that "separation of church and state" is a one-way street?

(04-04-2015 01:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So, Tom, you believe that "separation of church and state" is a one-way street?

If you are a private club or association (including a church), you shouldn't be using the extra protections you get from that format in order to cover commercial or government subsidized activities?

There is no benefit to society at large from tax deductible donations going to by Rev. Fred a new mansion. None. Its not just about churches. There's little, if any, benefit for tax deductible donations going to the Houston Polo Club either.

There's a difference between having the state not interfere with what you do on your property and having the state subsidize the purchase of that property.

---

Again, I agree with the decision in Dale v Boy Scouts. But I also agree that that the state should provide no benefit to them, as they are a private, discriminatory, organization.

Withholding special benefits isn't persecution. The state wouldn't be interfering with Ed Young's religious practice if they said "you'll have to pay property taxes on the property you control".

(04-04-2015 02:02 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 01:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So, Tom, you believe that "separation of church and state" is a one-way street?

If you are a private club or association (including a church), you shouldn't be using the extra protections you get from that format in order to cover commercial or government subsidized activities?

There is no benefit to society at large from tax deductible donations going to by Rev. Fred a new mansion. None. Its not just about churches. There's little, if any, benefit for tax deductible donations going to the Houston Polo Club either.

There's a difference between having the state not interfere with what you do on your property and having the state subsidize the purchase of that property.

---

Again, I agree with the decision in Dale v Boy Scouts. But I also agree that that the state should provide no benefit to them, as they are a private, discriminatory, organization.

Withholding special benefits isn't persecution. The state wouldn't be interfering with Ed Young's religious practice if they said "you'll have to pay property taxes on the property you control".

I ignore all of these posts because they are useless but sometimes you get a real gem.



Irony

(04-04-2015 02:12 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 02:02 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 01:40 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  So, Tom, you believe that "separation of church and state" is a one-way street?

If you are a private club or association (including a church), you shouldn't be using the extra protections you get from that format in order to cover commercial or government subsidized activities?

There is no benefit to society at large from tax deductible donations going to by Rev. Fred a new mansion. None. Its not just about churches. There's little, if any, benefit for tax deductible donations going to the Houston Polo Club either.

There's a difference between having the state not interfere with what you do on your property and having the state subsidize the purchase of that property.

---

Again, I agree with the decision in Dale v Boy Scouts. But I also agree that that the state should provide no benefit to them, as they are a private, discriminatory, organization.

Withholding special benefits isn't persecution. The state wouldn't be interfering with Ed Young's religious practice if they said "you'll have to pay property taxes on the property you control".

I ignore all of these posts because they are useless but sometimes you get a real gem.



Irony

Yea, Alabama's LGBT population has all kind of special benefits. I'll bet Billy Jack Gaither and Scotty Weaver would tell you all about them. Oh wait - they can't. By the way, those aren't the only two.

Life is so easy for LGBT Alabamians. That's why virtually all of them move away. Because it'd just be too easy to stay (sarcasm). All those out LGBT Alabamians working for silk stocking law firms (I actually do know one - one ! - who does). All those out LGBT administrators at Alabama's hospitals. My primary care physician is another Alabama expatriate. He had to leave his job at an Alabama hospital (not even a 'religious' one) because the anti-Gay harassment was so bad he couldn't do his job. Why not sue? Today he might be able to make an Oncale case. Back then he certainly couldn't. If they just said, you're fired, there'd be no recourse for him, today.

Its really so easy to live in a state where this happens... http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/02...ended.html (if the court hadn't gotten involved, that witch of a mother would have won).

And it must comforting to know that you can lose your kids simply because you are Gay, even if the other partner is an awful parent. And the state has tried (and succeeded for years) in blocking any visitation for Gays after a divorce (struck down by the activist courts - Thank God). http://www.salon.com/2013/08/01/a_victor...n_alabama/

And when you need access to justice, its also comforting to know that you will be going to a court where the Chief Justice and the other justices hate you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Moore (See DH vs HH)

But then again, does your esteemed law school even hire LGBT employees? Do they teach you that LGBT persons have a wonderful, privileged life in Alabama?

---

The situation in Alabama isn't as bad as Mississippi, but its' pretty dire.

(04-04-2015 01:34 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 09:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I really don't have a problem with the idea that if you hold yourself out as a business, you must serve everybody willing to pay your price.

My problem is that I don't think the objective is to stop at commercial activity. The ultimate objective is a court order that churches have to conduct gay marriages regardless of their religious tenets. This is why I posed the question earlier about weighing the equities between gay rights and sincerely held religious beliefs.

I would be totally supportive of a statute that said on the one hand you can't discriminate against gays in commercial businesses, but on the other hand the right of a church to set its doctrine is not subject to statute or litigation. That is the kind of separation of church and state that I support, and that I believe the founders intended. For the life of me, I can't understand why a gay couple would WANT to get married in a church that refused to perform same-sex weddings (or for that matter why they would want a wedding cake from a gay-unfriendly baker).

I don't see that. What I see is the following:

1) The Principle in Dale v Boy Scouts holds.
2) But no discriminatory group or organization can have any benefit from the state
3) Private clubs are prohibited from engaging in commerce. Including commercial real estate holdings

---

Why should Joel Osteen have a property tax exemption on his mansions? Or Second Baptist Church be allowed to own and operate shopping centers containing a Cafe Express tax free? What benefit accrues to the taxpayers from River Oaks Country Club's tax deductible status?

---

By the way, much of this wouldn't be a problem if the Federal government had a law expressly forbidding discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity for all commercial entities, all recipients of taxpayer dollars or subsidies, in housing, and in benefits.

Like I said in another thread. The move will be to fiscally punish people who don't line up for the leftist agenda. That way they put a tax on religion.