The Political Discussion Thread

[Coco Pops]

There are bounties up to 3 million dollar for information alone. So yes, there are in fact bounties to be had for information on folks on the list.

I did not know that ..

[Annoyed]

Yes i can. I have been hearing it from the left that "we don't want to force your churches to accept our weddings, just let us marry.". Now they turn around and do exactly that. Its always "Just one more thing we want" it seems.
And as to "he is probably not going to win".. With how many liberal judges there are out there, i wouldn't be so sure.

It's certain that there will be cases where a Church or other entity is forced by law to perform or participate in a wedding ceremony that is against their religious or moral beliefs, or penalized for not doing so.
It has already happened.

I am agnostic. I care not that the bible says Gay marriage is wrong. As i have said several times, i CARE NOT if you are for or against it. Just do NOT force me to accept it or support it.
Problem is to many of those i have spoken to who ARE FOR gay marriage, just me 'tolerating it like that; is not enough. Either i support it fully, or i am against it cause i am homophobic.
Which flies in the face of them saying "we want tolerance".

You misunderstand how the left defines tolerance.

Their idea of tolerance is that everyone should have to tolerate their views and actions on various topics, but they themselves shouldn't have to tolerate anyone else's views. Kind of a one way street there.

I could very easily expand upon this as it pertains to the gay marriage issue, but let's avoid that hot button for the moment and pick another area. Let's use mass communication media.

When Rush Limbaugh* sparked the current popularity of news/talk radio, it was financially very successful. Stations lined up to carry such programs, because wanted to listen to them, so they could sell advertising on these shows, and make a profit. And the vast majority of these successful hosts were conservative in nature. This was a product that people wanted, and wanted to listen to, as shown by their choosing to listen to it in incredibly large numbers

The left tried to duplicate this with left leaning shows/networks such as Air America. Problem was that since relatively few people wanted to hear what they were saying, they failed miserably in the highly competitive broadcast industry. Radio outlets aren't in business to lose money by carrying programs that no one listens to.

Sticky little problem for the left. People wanted to hear the views from the right, but did not want to hear the views of the left. So the left attempted to silence conservative talk radio by attempting to get legislation passed that would require a station that carried Limbaugh for 3 hours to also carry 3 hours of a show that they would lose money on because it couldn't draw an audience. They were counting on the stations dropping the conservative show in order to avoid being forced to air the leftist show.

As I said, they want their views tolerated, but they don't want to have to tolerate any opposing views. This is the left's idea of "Tolerance"

* I'm using Rush Limbaugh as an example because he was the first, and is still the most widely recognized right leaning host. He was great when he started in 1988. I heard the very first broadcast out of WABC radio (770 AM, NYC) and listened daily for about the first two years because my employment at the time had me in a car, driving around within radio range of NYC.

I do not listen to him today, or give much weight to anything he says, as he has become something of a caricature of himself, as well as his endless loyalty to the National Republican Party agenda, even though that agenda is no longer Conservative or even Republican.

[Britta]

It's certain that there will be cases where a Church or other entity is forced by law to perform or participate in a wedding ceremony that is against their religious or moral beliefs, or penalized for not doing so.
It has already happened.

No it hasn't. Not in the US, at least. It never happened for interracial marriage, and you can't expect it to happen for same sex marriage.

Nobody's being asked to say that gay marriage is good. You're entitled to your own moral/religious opinion. You're just being asked to stop using the law to make everyone else play by your rules. The law isn't there to enforce subjective moral opinion. Not banning something isn't the same as endorsing it.

[Falcon Horus]

I did not know that ..

Saw it for example in this article about the death of the "Emir of Suicide Bombers".

A list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations from the US Department of State.

List of US homegrown terrorist/hate organizations. Tried the FBI but they don't have any official listing online, foreign nor homegrown.

[Annoyed]

No it hasn't. Not in the US, at least. It never happened for interracial marriage, and you can't expect it to happen for same sex marriage.

Nobody's being asked to say that gay marriage is good. You're entitled to your own moral/religious opinion. You're just being asked to stop using the law to make everyone else play by your rules. The law isn't there to enforce subjective moral opinion. Not banning something isn't the same as endorsing it.

http://www.politifact.com/florida/st...icipate-same-/

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/...ing-after.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...f89_story.html

This week, lawmakers tweaked the law, adding language to “clarify” that it cannot be used by businesses, landlords and others to turn away gay customers. After an outcry by major companies, sports organizations and entertainers — as well as gay activists — lawmakers in Arkansas, Georgia and North Carolina amended similar measures or abandoned them.

Would you like more information? That was 5 minutes with a Google machine.

As I've said, it is already happening. The power of law is being used to force businesses to participate in activities that are in violation of their religious or personal beliefs or face penalties imposed by the government.
There is also the example of a minister in some town being fined for not performing a gay marriage that I posted here a week or two back. So you can bet your bottom dollar it's coming for Churches too.

Question for you. Why can't a gay couple simply go to a different vendor or church that does not object to the ceremony?
Why do they insist on forcing people who object to gay marriage to participate, rather than going to a vendor for the service that does not object?

Did you happen to see what I wrote above in response to another poster regarding the left's idea of tolerance? Seems to me that the LGBT groups want their activities be tolerated, but they themselves don't want to tolerate any opposing views.

[Britta]

http://www.politifact.com/florida/st...icipate-same-/

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/...ing-after.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...f89_story.html

Those are businesses, not churches. If you want to argue that a business should be free to refuse service for discriminatory reasons, I guess that's arguable under free speech. You'd have to let them be racist too, though.

That means that business have rights though, not just individuals. If an individual acts in their own interests, rather that those of the business, while in the course of their duties, they're defrauding the business. They're putting their own agenda ahead of the financial interests of the business. A business is not a person, it can't be religious.

Question for you. Why can't a gay couple simply go to a different vendor or church that does not object to the ceremony?
Why do they insist on forcing people who object to gay marriage to participate, rather than going to a vendor for the service that does not object?

The vast majority want exactly that. The problem before Obergefell vs. Hodges was that, in many states, even if you could find a church and vendors that chose to participate in it, the law forbade it. You had some religious people deciding that since they didn't want to do something, nobody should be allowed to. Churches were being denied the religious freedom to choose for themselves because a bunch of other religious people had banded together and conspired to subvert the constitution.

They want it to be illegal so it's easier for them to pretend that their reasons are logical, rather that just that it makes them uncomfortable or because their bible "says so".

Did you happen to see what I wrote above in response to another poster regarding the left's idea of tolerance? Seems to me that the LGBT groups want their activities be tolerated, but they themselves don't want to tolerate any opposing views.

There are people like that on both sides of the debate. The people who claim that the legalisation of same sex marriage violates their religious freedom, for example. They think that freedom of speech means they're entitled to the government agreeing with them.

[Annoyed]

AGREE 100%
The problem is it all goes into the collective "kitty" and then the government tries to pay for things. Your fuel excise ends up paying for something totally unrelated and people get -understandably- ........Annoyed........ about it. Again however, if you want to maintain or institute a flat tax regardless of income (as some do) other taxes -will- make up the shortfall for programs that just (at least appear to) cost money.

Those taxes were levied for express purpose of funding highway needs, and that is where it should spent.
If the government wants money for something else, then budget for it, and pay for it out of other taxes collected in a clear and transparent manner, rather than financial/budget chicanery.
Problem with that though, is a politician who proposes raising taxes often will not survive the next election, as people are already taxed to excess.
So our government is using this trick to do an end run around the taxpayers/voters.

Did you know that depending upon how you count, NY state is the most heavily taxed state in the U.S.?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-us-...-lowest-taxes/

Regardless of how you count, we're certainly in the top 3 or so.

I believe that you posted a chart showing how you would like taxes to be graduated depending upon income.
I'm not a rich man. I'm right on the cuttoff point you specified near 30K Some years, I'm a little above, sometimes a little below.
Just counting income tax, mind you, nothing else, I'm being taxed at about 15%

We do not have a taxation problem. We have a spending problem.

[Falcon Horus]

Do you not see the law-bits - if you don't follow the LAW, you're bound to run into the consequences of that law.

They are discriminating based on sexual orientation, which is against the law. If I were to say to a straight couple, sorry guys but no wedding cake for you cause I can't in good faith say I believe a man and a woman should be united as one, I'd be liable to a lawsuit just the same. It has nothing to do with your freedom of religion. It's all about discrimination.

Same as when that bakery would have denied an African-American a wedding cake. Or a Muslim a wedding cake - what would have been your answer then? The same as it is now. They have a right -- well, then I have a right to discriminate too... My marriage invitation has just been revoked. There... ...cause you're not a pagan, like me.

And voila, I just broke our anti-discrimination laws on the basis of religious freedom.


Foxnews - not biased at all...
I mean, they don't even think it was necessary for Trump to apologize about his notion that all Mexicans are rapists.

Also... you're a christian store owner and you refuse to cater to the gays -- I sincerely hope their gaydars are finetuned cause if they can tell who's gay and who's not (ordering a wedding cake with two men/women on top is totally giving it away) then I need me a christian friend to tell me who can I date and who I should avoid, unless I want to make a stupid fool out of myself.

[Britta]

Foxnews - not biased at all...
I mean, they don't even think it was necessary for Trump to apologize about his notion that all Mexicans are rapists.

It's a reasonable default to assume that everything on Fox News is a lie.

[jelgate]

It's a reasonable default to assume that everything on Fox News is a lie.

I get annoyed with people who say that. Mostly because they aren't any different then the other news stations being biased. Its just they are biased to a different political ideology.

[Starsaber]

It's certain that there will be cases where a Church or other entity is forced by law to perform or participate in a wedding ceremony that is against their religious or moral beliefs, or penalized for not doing so.
It has already happened.

Forcing churches to perform the marriage is just as wrong.

This is about civil marriage, not religious marriage, so religious beliefs shouldn't be a factor at all.

[Pharaoh Hamenthotep]

Forcing churches to perform the marriage is just as wrong.

This is about civil marriage, not religious marriage, so religious beliefs shouldn't be a factor at all.

They're not. Annoyed just likes being angry about it so he's ready if it does ever happen ..

...Also, he doesn't have any other arguments against it.. But is too stubborn to let it go.

[Annoyed]

It's a reasonable default to assume that everything on Fox News is a lie.

As opposed to the mainstream media, which is just a shill for left?

[Falcon Horus]

We can respect same-sex marriage and religious freedom

Especially agree to this bit, but that's just me then I guess:

On the other hand, who wants to pay for and eat a cake baked by someone who thinks you are committing a sin? Thank you, I'll pass.

Religious freedom after the Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage decision

Interesting bit in the comment-section which I hadn't even considered in my previous post:

My question for a business owner wanting to discriminate against a gay couple would be: will you discriminate against divorced people as well?

And then there's also this bit in the comments - the author of comment does not hold the author in high regard - let's call it freedom of speach:

So much misinformation here, it's hard to know where to begin. But let's start with Massachusetts. The Bay State has had marriage equality for 11 years. Not one of those supposed horrors predicted by Mr. Walsh has come to pass. The only proven result (backed by data, that is) was the overall divorce rate in Massachusetts dropped dramatically to the lowest in the country. I don't see this as a bad thing, but perhaps Mr. Walsh does; this is his right to feel divorce is a good thing and I won't argue it.

The fights over RFRAs in Indiana and Arkansas were not about the passage of laws identical to the federal RFRA; these were specifically about enabling people in those states to defy public accommodation laws without consequence—but only when they discriminated against LGBT people. These laws provided ZERO mechanism for proving someone has a deep "religious conviction" about displaying hate and bigotry against the gay folks. And they were discriminatory, which is why they ultimately failed.

No sane gay or lesbian couple is going to want to be married by some preacher who doesn't approve of their marriage—and no one can force this issue. But Mr. Walsh elects to choose scare tactics and empty rhetoric to say this is just around the corner. I have to wonder just when this is going to happen. Again, not once has this occurred since marriage equality became the law in Massachusetts (and it hasn't occurred in any other state either).

What irks me here is Mr. Walsh's inherent dishonesty. It's clear he hates the gay folks and he's upset gays and lesbians may now marry in all 50 states—contrary to his inherent bigotry. But Mr. Walsh—no one's religious rights have been trampled. Personally, as someone who's Jewish, I'm greatly offended by Christmas decorations in public spaces, but I'm not trying to have them torn down. I'm offended by people who continue to discriminate against left-handed people, red-haired people, short people (oh, this one is huge, no pun intended). I'm not offended when two men or two women I don't even know go down to the courthouse and get married (well, I'm a little jealous because I'm widowed and I fear it's too late for me to find happiness like theirs again). So Mr. Walsh, just fess up and admit you hate the gays for no clear or apparent reason.

Gay marriage won. Now comes the hard part: Protecting religious freedom.

Republicans who have forgotten what separation of church and state means. Nonetheless, not omitting the article from the list:
Now that same-sex marriage is legal, conservative Republicans consider doubling down on religious freedom rights

Interesting read... some of the examples given, remind me of the schoolteacher who was fired from a catholic school here because she wasn't baptized. However, everyone knows, or should know, that in order to teach at a catholic school one of the requirements is that you are in fact baptized.
How Will the U.S. Supreme Court's Same-Sex-Marriage Decision Affect Religious Liberty?

Gay Marriage Religious Freedom -- collection of 4 articles on the subject

[Annoyed]

Quote Originally Posted by Starsaber View Post
Forcing churches to perform the marriage is just as wrong.

This is about civil marriage, not religious marriage, so religious beliefs shouldn't be a factor at all.

They're not. Annoyed just likes being angry about it so he's ready if it does ever happen ..

...Also, he doesn't have any other arguments against it.. But is too stubborn to let it go.

Although I have other reasons why I don't approve of gay marriages, I'm not making any other arguments because the other reasons are based upon my own personal values and beliefs, and I don't have the right to impose my beliefs on others, any more than others should have the right to impose their beliefs upon me. The only argument I'm making is that forcing people, churches, or other entities to participate in activities that are against their beliefs is wrong and that it is not theoretical, it has already happened.

But another question remains: Why can't a gay couple simply go to a different vendor or church that does not object to the ceremony? Why do they insist on forcing people who object to gay marriage to participate, rather than going to a vendor for the service that does not object? That way, everyone is free to behave in accordance with their own beliefs, without stepping on anyone else's rights.