What about them? What civil rights are LGBTs denying to others? "LGBT" doesn't have to be in the constitution; they are covered by the civil rights acts, and other court decisions, by the term "all citizens". What free stuff are LGBTs requesting? Having one's respect, and being treated unfairly in our legal system, are two different things; guess which one LGBTs care about the most? What, exactly, is the difference between "whining" and "good old-fashioned Civil Disobedience"?...it would help if you would provide some examples.
Find a way that lets people with real religious beliefs against gay marriage not take part and not be penalized for it. I know to a lot of you someone's religious beliefs are not important but I have known many people thru the years that really did live by them. Maybe when a small business person files for or renews their business license, they can check a box saying upfront it is against their beliefs. Have a license posted in plain site that lets people know where they stand so no surprises. Have inspectors do checks every now and then like they do for other issues. Toughen the penalties for a business that discriminates just because they do not like them. Seriously the only real excuse is because gay marriage is against many peoples religious beliefs. Everything else is BS.
Interesting ideas. So, in this case, discrimination would be fine as long as it's for religious reasons? I think that's precisely the reason laws are now being enacted...to prevent discrimination based from religion. If we did this case, it wouldn't respect "everyone's" rights...business owners' religious beliefs would trump individuals' rights...so I don't understand how that would work.
Well the better way would be to get government out of religion totally but that will never happen as long as there is a buck to be made.
The idea is to let those with a real religious conviction against gay marriage stand by their beliefs instead of violating their rights. It is not ideal but it comes closest to respecting everyone's rights. Gay people could marry but could not force those who do not believe in it to take part. Those who do not believe could not stop gays from getting married.
To me the ideal way would to have civil unions and marriage have the same rights and responsibilities, and that was the way it was supposed to be years ago when this whole thing started.
Civil unions would be performed by the justice of the peace, county clerk or whomever and any churches that wanted too. Churches would perform weddings. Civil unions would be for gays, atheist, anyone that did not want a religious wedding. This would provide real separation of church and state as neither would have any say in how the other worked it.
The idea is to let those with a real religious conviction against gay marriage stand by their beliefs instead of violating their rights. It is not ideal but it comes closest to respecting everyone's rights. Gay people could marry but could not force those who do not believe in it to take part. Those who do not believe could not stop gays from getting married.
To me the ideal way would to have civil unions and marriage have the same rights and responsibilities, and that was the way it was supposed to be years ago when this whole thing started.
Civil unions would be performed by the justice of the peace, county clerk or whomever and any churches that wanted too. Churches would perform weddings. Civil unions would be for gays, atheist, anyone that did not want a religious wedding. This would provide real separation of church and state as neither would have any say in how the other worked it.
Would you say that your proposal is separate but equal?
For want of a better term yes and I already know you are going to throw the racism crap out, don't bother you will just embarrass yourself.
The real idea is to find a way to respect everyone's rights. It sucks but I can not think of another way that does not either keep gays from being in a legally recognized relationship or from violating the religious people's religious rights. The supreme court has already ruled that the owners of a closely held company do not give up their religious rights. This happened in the Hobby Lobby case. They have also ruled that gays have the right to marry. Now it is just a matter of finding a happy middle ground.
I'm a little slow, so please someone help me with this:
How can using State force to coerce anyone to associate with someone they wish not to be justified?
Yes, I'm aware of laws regarding discrimination, I'm not talking about the letter of the law.
Is forcing a business to serve people, or bakeries to bake cakes for people the business would rather shun not unlike the kindergarten teacher forcing a child to play with another child, because the teacher thinks it's "playing nice"?
You reckon it's OK to check our personal choice at the door and allow the State to tell us who we have to play nice with?
How can using State force to coerce anyone to associate with someone they wish not to be justified?
Yes, I'm aware of laws regarding discrimination, I'm not talking about the letter of the law.
Is forcing a business to serve people, or bakeries to bake cakes for people the business would rather shun not unlike the kindergarten teacher forcing a child to play with another child, because the teacher thinks it's "playing nice"?
You reckon it's OK to check our personal choice at the door and allow the State to tell us who we have to play nice with?
i will do what others seem to do here: Are you saying that homosexuality is a disability?
