Political Wrinkles  

Go Back   Political Wrinkles > Political Forums > Civil Rights & Abortion
Register FAQDonate PW Store PW Trivia Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Civil Rights & Abortion Discuss Gay adoption fight looms after Supreme Court's cake ruling at the Political Forums; Originally Posted by foundit66 The same logic could be applied to the Christian position. And by that logic, I guess ...

Reply
 
Share LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61 (permalink)  
Old 07-16-2018, 09:03 AM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 16,265
Thanks: 9,287
Thanked 9,850 Times in 6,011 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: Gay adoption fight looms after Supreme Court's cake ruling

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
The same logic could be applied to the Christian position.
And by that logic, I guess you just proved that for the Christian adoption agencies that prize prejudice over adoption, they aren't really interested in adoption...




It's amazing that you think the 14th amendment, an amendment intended to help ensure that civil rights are not trampled, is somehow being used to violate "religious rights".
The reality of your assessment is that the "religious rights" involved are simply THE GOVERNMENT GIVING A DISCRIMINATING ORGANIZATION MONEY.
That is not "religious rights".
There is nothing in "religious rights" which dictates that the government must give a religious group money.



To proclaim that not getting government money is a "punishment" is an amusing claim.
I guess the Republicans are seeking to "punish" welfare recipients then, eh?



There is no "religious freedom" that dictates a requirement to receive money.
The truth is that this is not "simply declaring discrimination". It is actually discrimination.

You need to drop the propagandic double-speak and discuss this issue in earnest.
For Christians the most important thing is following the teachings of Jesus Christ. The goal of placing the most children in adoptive homes cannot be achieved at the expense of following a government dictate that violates these religious beliefs, nor should Catholic Social services be required to by a government enjoined from inhibiting the free exercise of religion. That you stubbornly refuse to grasp this basic concept even hiding behind crude sarcasm proves your interest is not in the welfare of adoptive children but in using the power of the state to compell others at the expense of their rights.

There is no requirement that Catholic Social services continue to receive subsidies for adoption services. Kindly point out where I made this assertion their subsidies ought to be guaranteed. The issue is the government holding a long standing payment hostage to the Catholics violating their free exercise of religion. Just because activists begin braying the 14th is a license to use the power of government for compulsion doesn't nullify the first amendment.

Just like gay activists would rather crush small businesses destroying the owners religious freedom in the process rather than seek out merchants that welcome their wedding business, the cry is cut off their funding instead of seeking adoption services through another agency.

The 14th amendment you see empowers gay activists with superior authority to nullify the first amendment in every aspect because it was passed with superior intent to protect civil rights. The 14th amendment was recently "reinterpreted" to mean equality is anything activists demand including coercion to violate religious freedom.

The claim that withholding government payments to Catholic Social services for adoption services isn't punishment is absurd on its face. Attempts to cut government funding for Planned Parenthood's abortion mills are met with brazen demagoguery about women's health. Then again PP slaughters the unborn with no regard to their sexual orientation.
__________________
The Democrat's strategy for the Trump Presidency is the same one used by Stalin's secret police chief "show me the man and I will show you the crime."
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to AZRWinger For This Useful Post:
  #62 (permalink)  
Old 07-17-2018, 09:54 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,494
Thanks: 10,071
Thanked 15,221 Times in 9,225 Posts
Default Re: Gay adoption fight looms after Supreme Court's cake ruling

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
For Christians the most important thing is following the teachings of Jesus Christ. The goal of placing the most children in adoptive homes cannot be achieved at the expense of following a government dictate that violates these religious beliefs, nor should Catholic Social services be required to by a government enjoined from inhibiting the free exercise of religion. That you stubbornly refuse to grasp this basic concept even hiding behind crude sarcasm proves your interest is not in the welfare of adoptive children but in using the power of the state to compell others at the expense of their rights.

The vast majority of Christians don't have a problem with gays adopting.
Too often prejudices get enshrined in claims of "religious beliefs" when the actual policy involved can be found nowhere in the bible.
Can you show me where in the bible it states that gays should not be able to adopt?


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
There is no requirement that Catholic Social services continue to receive subsidies for adoption services. Kindly point out where I made this assertion their subsidies ought to be guaranteed.
You and your strawman arguments...
Let's revisit reality, shall we?
You claimed that first amendment rights were being trampled, which is absolute hogwash. The only way anybody could arrive at such a conclusion is by assuming that the subsidies were a given.
Cause when one realizes that all the organization has to do is to not receive government money and they can practice this discrimination, it's rather obvious that their rights are not being trampled.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
The issue is the government holding a long standing payment hostage to the Catholics violating their free exercise of religion. Just because activists begin braying the 14th is a license to use the power of government for compulsion doesn't nullify the first amendment.
This is patently stupid.
A hostage situation is where somebody without a choice is being threatened and something of value has to be provided in order for the hostage to go free.
By your ludicrous argument, we could say that welfare recipients are "hostages" to Republican complaints on big government.

What we have here is people who have no right to receiving the money being told that they can do as they please as long as they don't take the money.
And if they take the money, then they have to abide by the rules accompanying the money acquisition.

And you call that "hostage"????



Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Just like gay activists would rather crush small businesses destroying the owners religious freedom in the process rather than seek out merchants that welcome their wedding business, the cry is cut off their funding instead of seeking adoption services through another agency.

14th amendment dictates non-discrimination.
They can choose either:
a) Take the tax-payer money and the rules that come along with it, OR
b) Reject the tax-payer money and the rules that come along with it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
The 14th amendment you see empowers gay activists with superior authority to nullify the first amendment in every aspect because it was passed with superior intent to protect civil rights. The 14th amendment was recently "reinterpreted" to mean equality is anything activists demand including coercion to violate religious freedom.
It is disgusting how often people try to boil down these types of issues to pretend it's "the gays" who are doing these things instead of recognizing a universal constitutional standard.
The government cannot discriminate in violation of the 14th amendment.
The government cannot pay money to organizations that violate the standards of the 14th amendment in a way that the government could not if they were acting in that role.

There is no violation of "religious freedom" when it boils down to simply they are not entitled to this money in the first place.
Trying to claim "religious freedom" because they cannot take the government's money and discriminate in an unconstitutional manner is a mind-boggling argument.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
The claim that withholding government payments to Catholic Social services for adoption services isn't punishment is absurd on its face. Attempts to cut government funding for Planned Parenthood's abortion mills are met with brazen demagoguery about women's health. Then again PP slaughters the unborn with no regard to their sexual orientation.
And if they did discriminate, then they also would be rejected from government funds on the 14th amendment standards...

__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #63 (permalink)  
Old 10-03-2018, 10:43 AM
ShivaTD's Avatar
Progressive Libertarian
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Immigrant to Arizona
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,396
Thanks: 1,452
Thanked 2,232 Times in 1,771 Posts
Default Re: Gay adoption fight looms after Supreme Court's cake ruling

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Shoe View Post
The Supreme Court did not side with the baker based upon the merit of discrimination imposed by religious beliefs. The Supreme Court rejected the decision based upon apparent animus in the decision against Jack Phillips, the baker, and discharged the case based upon those grounds.
__________________
"I always had a rule, if a restaurant is dirty on the outside, it's dirty on the inside." Donald Trump

"I always had a rule, if the White House is dirty on the inside, it's dirty on the outside." ShivaTD

Based upon the corruption, brutality, inhumanity, immorality, dishonesty, and incompetence of the Trump administration the White House is the dirtiest house in America and there's no known cleanser that with remove the stains of the Trump Administration.
Reply With Quote
  #64 (permalink)  
Old 10-04-2018, 10:07 AM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 16,265
Thanks: 9,287
Thanked 9,850 Times in 6,011 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: Gay adoption fight looms after Supreme Court's cake ruling

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShivaTD View Post
The Supreme Court did not side with the baker based upon the merit of discrimination imposed by religious beliefs. The Supreme Court rejected the decision based upon apparent animus in the decision against Jack Phillips, the baker, and discharged the case based upon those grounds.
The SCOTUS reaffirmed the basic obligation for state boards to conduct fair hearings. The so-called human rights commission had abandoned this human right as shown by the highly prejudicial remarks of one of its members.

It is correct the SCOTUS didn't decide the case based on first amendment religious rights. That doesn't mean the Court endorses the abrogation of religious rights. The obvious prejudice of the commissioner provided a readily agreed upon reason to overturn the commission's finding against the baker. The Court declined to waste time with further consideration of a case already decided.
__________________
The Democrat's strategy for the Trump Presidency is the same one used by Stalin's secret police chief "show me the man and I will show you the crime."
Reply With Quote
  #65 (permalink)  
Old 10-04-2018, 10:54 AM
RightofCenterLeftofCrazy
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Idaho
Gender: Male
Posts: 790
Thanks: 48
Thanked 570 Times in 339 Posts
Default Re: Gay adoption fight looms after Supreme Court's cake ruling

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Despite the fact the baker offered any of his products besides a wedding cake ...
I thought he also offered them an "off the shelf" wedding cake as well. He just wouldn't custom bake them one.
Reply With Quote
  #66 (permalink)  
Old 10-05-2018, 12:02 PM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,494
Thanks: 10,071
Thanked 15,221 Times in 9,225 Posts
Post Re: Gay adoption fight looms after Supreme Court's cake ruling

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
The SCOTUS reaffirmed the basic obligation for state boards to conduct fair hearings. The so-called human rights commission had abandoned this human right as shown by the highly prejudicial remarks of one of its members.
This is understood and recognized.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
It is correct the SCOTUS didn't decide the case based on first amendment religious rights. That doesn't mean the Court endorses the abrogation of religious rights.
You speak in hyperbole to hide the truth.
The court provided explicit comment on the following scenario:
a) A law states that public business discrimination based on sexual orientation is forbidden.
b) A bakery wants to refuse wedding cake sale to gay couples for a claim of religious reasons.
The court's [b]explicit[/b comment was that this scenario is not protected under the first amendment.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Zenock
I thought he also offered them an "off the shelf" wedding cake as well. He just wouldn't custom bake them one.
I don't know why people keep trying to invent excuses.
If the bakery is willing to offer a service or item for a straight person / couple but then refuses to provide that same service or item for a gay person / couple, that is sexual orientation discrimination.

It doesn't matter what "separate" options are attempted.
EQUALITY is the important factor.
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #67 (permalink)  
Old 10-10-2018, 10:28 AM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 16,265
Thanks: 9,287
Thanked 9,850 Times in 6,011 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: Gay adoption fight looms after Supreme Court's cake ruling

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
This is understood and recognized.



You speak in hyperbole to hide the truth.
The court provided explicit comment on the following scenario:
a) A law states that public business discrimination based on sexual orientation is forbidden.
b) A bakery wants to refuse wedding cake sale to gay couples for a claim of religious reasons.
The court's [b]explicit[/b comment was that this scenario is not protected under the first amendment.



I don't know why people keep trying to invent excuses.
If the bakery is willing to offer a service or item for a straight person / couple but then refuses to provide that same service or item for a gay person / couple, that is sexual orientation discrimination.

It doesn't matter what "separate" options are attempted.
EQUALITY is the important factor.
I found several articles characterizing the majority opinion like this one does.

Quote:
the majority did not rule at all on one of the central arguments in the case – whether compelling Phillips to bake a cake for a same-sex couple would violate his right to freedom of speech.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.scotu...cake-case/amp/

Having found a majority of justices agreed upon a basis to rule narrowly on the case it would seem unlikely the SCOTUS would go on to validate laws denying first amendment rights. Please provide a quote with a link to the passage in the majority opinion endorsing the trampling of religious rights.
__________________
The Democrat's strategy for the Trump Presidency is the same one used by Stalin's secret police chief "show me the man and I will show you the crime."
Reply With Quote
  #68 (permalink)  
Old 10-10-2018, 11:36 AM
foundit66's Avatar
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: California
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,494
Thanks: 10,071
Thanked 15,221 Times in 9,225 Posts
Default Re: Gay adoption fight looms after Supreme Court's cake ruling

Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
I found several articles characterizing the majority opinion like this one does.
https://www.google.com/amp/www.scotu...cake-case/amp/
Oh golly gee whiz.
You found articles that agree with you?
Heavens to Betsy! Nobody told me that...


As I have explained numerous times before...
We have had Civil Rights laws in this country for over half a century which forbid business discrimination based on characteristics like race, gender, religion, national origin, etc...
We have never allowed public businesses to hide behind religion for observing these laws.
Never.
Not even for the KKK who claimed a Christian mandate.

We have now added "sexual orientation" to the legislation books for preventing public business discrimination.
The rules don't magically change...


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Having found a majority of justices agreed upon a basis to rule narrowly on the case it would seem unlikely the SCOTUS would go on to validate laws denying first amendment rights.
ROFLMAO!
Well, you would be right that they did not "validate laws denying first amendment rights".
Because the first amendment rights are not invoked with these laws in the first place.

And it wasn't a "narrow" ruling. There were only two judges dissenting.
And the funny thing for your position is that these were liberal judges and they were not dissenting because they thought religion should be free to break the law.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AZRWinger View Post
Please provide a quote with a link to the passage in the majority opinion endorsing the trampling of religious rights.
I'll be happy to educate you despite your repeated poor assessment of the legal situation...
Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons
and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as
inferior in dignity and worth. For that reason the laws
and the Constitution can, and in some instances must,
protect them in the exercise of their civil rights. The
exercise of their freedom on terms equal to others must be
given great weight and respect by the courts. At the same
time, the religious and philosophical objections to gay
marriage are protected views and in some instances protected
forms of expression. As this Court observed in
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. ___ (2015), “[t]he First
Amendment ensures that religious organizations and
persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach
the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their
lives and faiths.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 27). Nevertheless,
while those religious and philosophical objections are
protected, it is a general rule that such objections do not
allow business owners and other actors in the economy
and in society to deny protected persons equal access to
goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable
public accommodations law.
See Newman v. Piggy
Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U. S. 400, 402, n. 5 (1968) (per
curiam); see also Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian
and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U. S. 557, 572
(1995)
__________________
“Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
~Abraham Lincoln
Reply With Quote
  #69 (permalink)  
Old 10-10-2018, 05:20 PM
Dog Man's Avatar
Down Boy!
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Southern Nevada
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,256
Thanks: 3,563
Thanked 4,450 Times in 3,128 Posts
Default Re: Gay adoption fight looms after Supreme Court's cake ruling

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Oh golly gee whiz.
You found articles that agree with you?
Heavens to Betsy! Nobody told me that...


As I have explained numerous times before...
We have had Civil Rights laws in this country for over half a century which forbid business discrimination based on characteristics like race, gender, religion, national origin, etc...
We have never allowed public businesses to hide behind religion for observing these laws.
Never.
Not even for the KKK who claimed a Christian mandate.

We have now added "sexual orientation" to the legislation books for preventing public business discrimination.
The rules don't magically change...



ROFLMAO!
Well, you would be right that they did not "validate laws denying first amendment rights".
Because the first amendment rights are not invoked with these laws in the first place.

And it wasn't a "narrow" ruling. There were only two judges dissenting.
And the funny thing for your position is that these were liberal judges and they were not dissenting because they thought religion should be free to break the law.



I'll be happy to educate you despite your repeated poor assessment of the legal situation...
Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons
and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as
inferior in dignity and worth. For that reason the laws
and the Constitution can, and in some instances must,
protect them in the exercise of their civil rights. The
exercise of their freedom on terms equal to others must be
given great weight and respect by the courts. At the same
time, the religious and philosophical objections to gay
marriage are protected views and in some instances protected
forms of expression. As this Court observed in
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. ___ (2015), “[t]he First
Amendment ensures that religious organizations and
persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach
the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their
lives and faiths.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 27). Nevertheless,
while those religious and philosophical objections are
protected, it is a general rule that such objections do not
allow business owners and other actors in the economy
and in society to deny protected persons equal access to
goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable
public accommodations law.
See Newman v. Piggy
Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U. S. 400, 402, n. 5 (1968) (per
curiam); see also Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian
and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U. S. 557, 572
(1995)
It could be said that the "Protected Persons" generally had equal access to goods and services, just not at that bakery.

Do you think they went to that bakery because they knew they the bakery was run by Christians? I guess I would like to know if the "Protected Persons" just happened to go to that bakery, or did they target that bakery to force them to change their views on gay sex?
__________________
If Trump had ran and won as a socialist Democrat, the left would be forgiving and defending all of his faults.[
Reply With Quote
  #70 (permalink)  
Old 10-11-2018, 08:56 AM
Conservative Sage
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 16,265
Thanks: 9,287
Thanked 9,850 Times in 6,011 Posts
Send a message via ICQ to AZRWinger
Default Re: Gay adoption fight looms after Supreme Court's cake ruling

Quote:
Originally Posted by foundit66 View Post
Oh golly gee whiz.
You found articles that agree with you?
Heavens to Betsy! Nobody told me that...


As I have explained numerous times before...
We have had Civil Rights laws in this country for over half a century which forbid business discrimination based on characteristics like race, gender, religion, national origin, etc...
We have never allowed public businesses to hide behind religion for observing these laws.
Never.
Not even for the KKK who claimed a Christian mandate.

We have now added "sexual orientation" to the legislation books for preventing public business discrimination.
The rules don't magically change...



ROFLMAO!
Well, you would be right that they did not "validate laws denying first amendment rights".
Because the first amendment rights are not invoked with these laws in the first place.

And it wasn't a "narrow" ruling. There were only two judges dissenting.
And the funny thing for your position is that these were liberal judges and they were not dissenting because they thought religion should be free to break the law.



I'll be happy to educate you despite your repeated poor assessment of the legal situation...
Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons
and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as
inferior in dignity and worth. For that reason the laws
and the Constitution can, and in some instances must,
protect them in the exercise of their civil rights. The
exercise of their freedom on terms equal to others must be
given great weight and respect by the courts. At the same
time, the religious and philosophical objections to gay
marriage are protected views and in some instances protected
forms of expression. As this Court observed in
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. ___ (2015), “[t]he First
Amendment ensures that religious organizations and
persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach
the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their
lives and faiths.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 27). Nevertheless,
while those religious and philosophical objections are
protected, it is a general rule that such objections do not
allow business owners and other actors in the economy
and in society to deny protected persons equal access to
goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable
public accommodations law.
See Newman v. Piggy
Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U. S. 400, 402, n. 5 (1968) (per
curiam); see also Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian
and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U. S. 557, 572
(1995)
The issue at hand is the ruling in the case involving a Colorado baker's refusal to bake a custom cake for a same sex couple's wedding. It's the opinion referenced in the linked article.

Despite your earlier claim the opinion did not sanctify the right of same sex couples to trample over the religious rights of others. The decision was narrow in scope. Realizing that, you resort to your usual tactics attempting mockery while childishly trying to distort "narrow" as a description of the vote not the opinion.

Perhaps less time trying to insult me personally would allow you a better grasp of the legal opinion at issue here. Again, the challenge is to provide proof the SCOTUS provided the broad injunctions against religious objections by merchants to participating in same sex weddings in the case of the Colorado baker.
__________________
The Democrat's strategy for the Trump Presidency is the same one used by Stalin's secret police chief "show me the man and I will show you the crime."
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
adoption, after, cake, court, fight, gay, looms, ruling, supreme

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0