Adrian Peterson says he's 'not with' gay marriage

[skidadl]

Did blacks accept compromise when fighting for their rights?

Did they agree to sit in the middle of the bus, but not the front?

There are equal rights or things are not equal.

There is no compromise.

There is nothing wrong with fighting for societal recognition but that is not what we are talking about.

 

[Kbrown]

Did blacks accept compromise when fighting for their rights?

Did they agree to sit in the middle of the bus, but not the front?

There are equal rights or things are not equal.

There is no compromise.

Except that fight was about equality under the law, and this is about equality under the law, plus the complete redefinition of an institution to use the power of government as an avenue for social acceptance.

As an aside, I don't know how black people aren't extremely offended by the constant comparisons of their experience in America to that of gays (who were never enslaved, who have always been able to vote, who have never faced segregation).

 

[Clay_Allison]

All great points, but when I asked why someone would get married if they don't like the government involvement the response I got was the social and religious aspect of it. This is all legal chitter chatter, having nothing to do with social or religious interests.

The conversation moved on to how marriage would be handled if the government didn't recognize the institution as being unique and with a specific set of legal ramifications.

 

[Carp]

The conversation moved on to how marriage would be handled if the government didn't recognize the institution as being unique and with a specific set of legal ramifications.

No, that came after your reply.

 

[Clay_Allison]

No, that came after your reply.

My reply was specific to me, that I'm more comfortable being married than just cohabitating. My wife is too. Just because I don't like how the system is set up doesn't mean I'm going to try to boycott it entirely. The extent to which I'm willing to inconvenience myself to make a philosophical point is very limited.

 

[Smitty]

Did blacks accept compromise when fighting for their rights?

Did they agree to sit in the middle of the bus, but not the front?

There are equal rights or things are not equal.

There is no compromise.

As far as government action, yes. And my idea would accomplish it.

 

[EZ22]

Maybe this will fire things up again: if it's all about equality under the law and familial rights, why won't gay activists accept the compromise of civil unions?

I'm with you on that... if the benefits and rights are the exact same, who gives a shit what it's called? (But to be fair I think it's retarded that people get their panties in a wad that they want to call it "marriage" as well.)

I believe a large majority of them would accept that, but just like with anything all you hear from are the loud extremists.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

Well, a "will" still always trumps state intestacy laws, for one, so you can always contract around it.

Not really, in the state of Missouri you are guaranteed your elective share regardless of a will as a spouse. This is all by state.

 

[Smitty]

Not really, in the state of Missouri you are guaranteed your elective share regardless of a will as a spouse. This is all by state.

Oh, that's true. Same here.

 

[Smitty]

Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake

Colo. gay couple files discrimination complaint alleging baker denied them wedding cake

DENVER (AP) -- A gay couple is pursuing a discrimination complaint against a Colorado bakery, saying the business refused them a wedding cake to honor their Massachusetts ceremony, and alleging that the owners have a history of turning away same-sex couples.

As more states move to legalize same-sex marriage and civil unions, the case highlights a growing tension between gay rights advocates and supporters of religious freedom.

"Religious freedom is a fundamental right in America and it's something that we champion at the ACLU," said Mark Silverstein, the legal director of the group in Colorado, which filed the complaint on behalf of the couple. "We are all entitled to our religious beliefs and we fight for that. But someone's personal religious beliefs don't justify breaking the law by discriminating against others in the public sphere."

The attorney for Jack Phillips, one of the owners of Masterpiece Cakeshop, sees it differently.

"We don't believe that this is a case about commerce. At its heart, this is a case about conscience," said Nicolle Martin. She said the matter is important because it will serve as an example for future cases across the country as more gay couples gain legal recognitions for their relationships.

"It brings it to the forefront. I just don't think that we should heighten one person's beliefs over and above another person's beliefs," she said.

The Colorado Attorney General's office filed a formal complaint last week after the ACLU initiated the process last year on behalf of David Mullins and Charlie Craig. The case is scheduled for a hearing in September before Colorado's Civil Rights Commission.

Nationwide, 12 states now allow gay marriage, with Rhode Island, Delaware and Minnesota doing so this year. And in a year that Colorado lawmakers approved civil unions, they also elected the first gay Speaker of the House.

But Colorado's civil union law does not provide religious protections for businesses despite the urging of Republican lawmakers. Democrats argued that such a provision would give businesses cover to discriminate.

Mullins, 28, and Craig, 33, filed the discrimination complaint against Phillips after visiting his business in suburban Denver last summer. After a few minutes looking at pictures of different cakes, the couple said Phillips told them he wouldn't make one for them when he found out it was to celebrate their wedding in Colorado after they got married in Massachusetts. Phillips has said making a wedding cake for gay couples would violate his Christian religious beliefs, according to the complaint.

"We were all very upset, but I was angry and I felt dehumanized and mortified," Mullins said. He said he vented his frustration on Facebook and was surprised at how "the story ended up catching fire," with responses from local media and bloggers in other countries posting about it.

"We felt that the best way to honor the support that they had given us was to follow this complaint through," he said. In the process, the ACLU said they found out about two other gay couples who had been refused a wedding cake from the same shop. Both have written affidavits in support of the discrimination claim.

Recent advances on gay rights only underscore Colorado's difficult past on the issue. In 2006, voters banned gay marriage. More notably, in 1992, voters approved a ban on municipal antidiscrimination laws to protect gays, leading some to brand Colorado a "hate state." Four years later, the U.S. Supreme Court said the law, known as Amendment 2, was unconstitutional.

The complaint seeks to force Masterpiece Cakeshop to "cease and desist" the practice of refusing wedding cakes for gay couples, and to tell the public that their business is open to everyone.

If Phillips loses the case and refuses to comply with the order, he would face fines of $500 per case and up to a year in jail, his attorney said.

"It would force him to choose between his conscience and a paycheck. I just think that's an intolerable choice," Martin said.

.........................................

This is why marriage should stop being recognized by the government. This is exactly what I was talking about.

Now, gay people are going to try to force this baker to sell them a wedding cake when he does not agree with their marriage. They can use the law against him to force him to violate his own religious views or force him out of business (through fines and other government action).

This is not fair to the baker. He should be able to deny selling a gay wedding cake if he wants.

This is why the only solution to this mess that is fair is the one I've proposed (not that I'm the first, just the one I advocate). If you own a business, you can be FORCED TO CLOSE for refusing to recognize gay marriage. This is a PRIVATE entity!

This is why the Gay Marriage debate is largely a lie. Because an underlying part of the agenda for a large portion of the movement is to force other people to accept them, as these two queen assholes are doing to this businessman.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

This is why the Gay Marriage debate is largely a lie. Because an underlying part of the agenda for a large portion of the movement is to force other people to accept them, as these two queen assholes are doing to this businessman.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

This is why the only solution to this mess that is fair is the one I've proposed (not that I'm the first, just the one I advocate). If you own a business, you can be FORCED TO CLOSE for refusing to recognize gay marriage. This is a PRIVATE entity!

Let private business do what they want. It's why smoking bans bug the shit out of me. If a business wants to allow smoking let them do it. If the patrons really cared about being in a smoke free bar they would go to a different establishment that is smoke free. If people really cared businesses would go smoke free all on their own without the government forcing them to do so. It's also the reason why I don't feel like a private business should have to cater to the homosexual community. I think in most towns that type of an attitude would probably destroy the business or certainly hurt it, but it's their decision as a business owner to do that.

Now of course people will argue that this is the same as a store not letting blacks in. In reality it isn't at all. You're not talking about a business not serving a group of people all together, you're talking about a business not offering a certain service. I'm sure if homosexual people go into the bakery asking for a birthday cake, they would sell it.

 

[Smitty]

Let private business do what they want. It's why smoking bans bug the shit out of me. If a business wants to allow smoking let them do it. If the patrons really cared about being in a smoke free bar they would go to a different establishment that is smoke free. If people really cared businesses would go smoke free all on their own without the government forcing them to do so. It's also the reason why I don't feel like a private business should have to cater to the homosexual community. I think in most towns that type of an attitude would probably destroy the business or certainly hurt it, but it's their decision as a business owner to do that.

Now of course people will argue that this is the same as a store not letting blacks in. In reality it isn't at all. You're not talking about a business not serving a group of people all together, you're talking about a business not offering a certain service. I'm sure if homosexual people go into the bakery asking for a birthday cake, they would sell it.

Good point.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Seems to me that the first amendment protects the baker from having to violate his religious beliefs.

 

[Smitty]

Seems to me that the first amendment protects the baker from having to violate his religious beliefs.

You'd think so, but like I pointed out, they did this same thing with equal rights and serving minorities. If you refused to serve black people, they shut you down in the name of the commerce clause, even if it did not involve interstate commerce.

They can do the same thing here. The difference is, it's tough to make the argument that there is a legitimate religious belief against serving black people. But the precedent is there.

 

[Clay_Allison]

The difference is, it's tough to make the argument that there is a legitimate religious belief against serving black people.

That's what I was thinking. Personally, if it went to the Supreme Court, I feel that this court would uphold the first amendment rights of business owners.

Whether it's this baker or a bigger entity like Chik Fil A refusing to offer a gay couple spousal health benefits, it's going to get tested at that level in my estimation.