I'm saying that if homosexuality didn't exist we would be no worse off.
I'm saying that if homosexuality didn't exist we would be no worse off.
Can you explain how homosexuality makes you personally worse off?
Because there is a small screeching group continually demanding attention for their "needs" which takes the minds of the politicians off the job of making life better for everyone.
there is a small screeching group continually demanding attention for their "needs" which takes the minds of the politicians off the job of making life better for everyone
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.
In a 7-2 decision handed down on Monday, June 4, the justices set aside a Colorado court’s ruling against the baker, Jack Phillips.
The justices found that the decision reached by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission against Phillips was affected by an anti-religious bias, violating his rights under the First Amendment.
“The commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion ruling on the case.
The ruling did not address the broader issue of whether businesses can refuse to serve gay or lesbian people on religious grounds.
Phillips’ attorney, Michael Farris, president of the conservative Christian non-profit Alliance Defending Freedom, told Fox that his client was “ecstatic” at the decision.
“Justice Kennedy has held that tolerance is a two-way street, and Jack Phillips was not tolerated by the Civil Rights Commission of Colorado,” he said.
The case revolved around an incident in July 2012, where a same-sex couple, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, visited Phillips’s Masterpiece Cakeshop in Denver to order a wedding cake. Phillips refused his services, saying he did not make cakes for same-sex weddings. The couple then made a formal complaint to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
Colorado law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and the commission concluded that Phillips’ refusal violated the law, despite Phillips’ argument that he is opposed to same-sex marriage on religious grounds. Colorado state courts upheld the determination.
Kennedy’s majority opinion stated that the commission was required under the First Amendment’s free exercise clause to “proceed in a manner neutral toward and tolerant of Phillips’ religious beliefs.”
The justices found some comments made by commissioners during deliberations betrayed an anti-religious bias and disparaged religion. They concluded that “the commission’s consideration of Phillips’ case was neither tolerant nor respectful of Phillips’ religious beliefs.”
Kennedy noted in one instance, a commissioner “even went so far as to compare Phillips’ invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust.”
Kristen Waggoner, the Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel who argued Phillips’ case, said the court was right to condemn the commission’s open antagonism toward Phillips’ religious beliefs about marriage being a sacred covenant between a man and a woman.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which represented the couple, said it was pleased that the court did not endorse a broad religion-based exemption from anti-discrimination laws.
Mullins has previously told Fox that his case was about “the rights of gay people to receive equal service in business … It’s about basic access to public life.”
Phillips, who says he has lost business as a result of the controversy, explained last year that, “It’s not about turning away these customers, it’s about doing a cake for an event — a religious sacred event — that conflicts with my conscience,” he said, according to Fox.
The Trump administration intervened in the case on Phillips’ behalf, and Attorney General Jeff Sessions praised the decision.
“The First Amendment prohibits governments from discriminating against citizens on the basis of religious beliefs. The Supreme Court rightly concluded that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission failed to show tolerance and respect for Mr. Phillips’ religious beliefs,” Sessions said.
As to the wider issue of whether a business can invoke religious objections to refuse services, Kennedy said that those questions “must await further elaboration in the courts.”
Several other legal disputes, similar to the Phillips case, over wedding services remain pending review by the courts. In addition to florists, video producers and graphic artists are among business owners who say they oppose participating in same-sex weddings on religious grounds.
Barronelle Stutzman, a florist in Richland, Washington, has appealed a state Supreme Court ruling that found she violated state law for refusing to provide the wedding flowers for two men who were about to be married.
The justices could decide what to do with that appeal by the end of June.
It's just respect for others and allowing people to live their lives without trying to poison the atmosphere around them.
Yes basilio, it is all good now, everything is settling down and people can just get on with their lives. lol
https://www.couriermail.com.au/life...s/news-story/5d81f35c8cc8ba3667ee8056409ff0f9
We are becoming a weird society.
Thankfully the kids will just get on with their lives, while some just have to get their 15 minutes of fame, who knows?
Confused people raising even more confused children.
It won't end well.
I can't blame people for being confused, so for their benefit... What exactly does a heterosexual couple changing their gender have anything to do with legalised same sex marriage ???
I can't blame people for being confused, so for their benefit... What exactly does a heterosexual couple changing their gender have anything to do with legalised same sex marriage ???
Can't see how that changes anything. They're not gay - let alone married as such.At some stage they will be same sex?
Can't see how that changes anything. They're not gay - let alone married as such.
The confusing bit is this... the woman started her gender changing process in 2011. Which is 3 years prior to SSM being legal in that country - and 7 years prior to it being legal in this country.
The connection with that and SSM here seems to fail the pub test
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?