‘Our Love Life Is None Of Your Business,’ Says Couple Forcing Business Owner To Approve Their Love L

Discussion in 'Current Events & Politics' started by civilwarbuff, Jan 13, 2018 at 6:29 AM.

Tags:
  1. civilwarbuff

    civilwarbuff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2016
    Messages:
    5,740
    [​IMG] The Babylon Bee

    Home Lifestyle ‘Our Love Life Is None Of Your Business,’ Says Couple Forcing Business...
    ‘Our Love Life Is None Of Your Business,’ Says Couple Forcing Business Owner To Approve Their Love Life
    December 7, 2017
    Share on Facebook
    Tweet on Twitter
    [​IMG]
    LAKEWOOD, CO—According to reports, a same-sex Lakewood couple informed a local business owner their private love life is none of his business, while insisting that he and his company approve and fully accept their love life, sources confirmed Wednesday.


    The couple, whose relationship may violate the privately held religious beliefs of some Americans, including the business owner, told him to “get out of our bedroom” while they demanded he use his business to openly affirm and celebrate their lifestyle choices.

    “How dare he force his extremist views on us?” the couple reportedly asked, while threatening to bring legal action and destroy his livelihood if he would not defy his widely-held religious beliefs in order to provide a service that they could easily receive at dozens of other local, willing companies.

    “We have rights. No one can tell us how to live our lives!” the couple told sources, as they used the justice system to force the business owner to violate his own convictions and coerce him to applaud their personal decisions.

    “After all, this is America!” they added.

    http://babylonbee.com/news/love-lif...ple-forcing-business-owner-approve-love-life/
     
    JoChris, Pegasus and Uncle Siggy like this.
  2. jasonc

    jasonc Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2014
    Messages:
    32,629
    Christian:
    Yes
    Satire, point made
     
    Uncle Siggy likes this.
  3. Politico

    Politico Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,328
    Yeah, what hypocrisy. Good perspective on this case. It demonstrates their grotesque hypocrisy.

    I was reading a question posed by judge Sotomayor to the Baker's defense attorney. The judge apparently believes or believed that a message conveyed in and on a wedding cake has nothing to do with the person creating the object creating expressing such message. Or maybe the judge was just exploring the nuances of the transaction. But it appears as if she does actually believe such a thing. Scary that such a highly placed judge could apparently believe such a thing.
     
  4. Swans

    Swans Over-Enthused Muse Member

    Joined:
    Friday
    Messages:
    81
    Satire yes and yet, the sequel of Sodom and Gomorrah is actively being pursued by the Sodomites of this age so as to manifest its return presence in America. And while we know how that first story turned out they're the one's who are going to be oh so surprised if the sequel doesn't work out any better.
     
  5. Politico

    Politico Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,328
    SCOTUS has blindly and foolishly placed themselves into a box by running headlong into attempting to decide what constitutes the true source of moral authority.
     
    Pegasus and Uncle Siggy like this.
  6. Swans

    Swans Over-Enthused Muse Member

    Joined:
    Friday
    Messages:
    81
    Well in the case of their coming down on the side of gay marriage as I recall it was the 14th amendment issue that cinched it. Equal protection under the law. Straights can get married by law so therefore those who are of a different sexual orientation cannot be denied the same right due to their gender preference. Also because of that gender preference being cause to deny a license, that then probably constituted gender discrimination which was already illegal.

    Right after the SCOTUS ruling a plural marriage proponent threesome tried to obtain a marriage license. The man and woman in the threesome were already married. The man was seeking to get another license in order to marry a second wife.
    It is inevitable that plural marriage will be the next pursuit. Once a nation abrades a moral artery that sustains the foundation of its national identity, the rest of the fabric of morality and decency within that nation will start to unravel. And by law.
     
  7. Milk-Drops

    Milk-Drops Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2012
    Messages:
    3,671
    Location:
    Kewana, Indiana
    Christian:
    No
    I'm not going to say its not going to be breached, but right now I don't see plural marriage arguments being able to use same sex mariage as a jumping point because the basis of same sex marriage was about being able to get a government license for the person you love and want to commit to. Emphasis on person. Plural marriage's biggest obstacle is that it has to have an argument for plural marriage. same sex marriage was because of legal rights in the cases of taxes, inheritance, adoption, etc. Plural marriages make it more of a legal nightmare because instead of assets being split 50/50, it would be split into more shares and then if a person dies or wants out it would create issues of how to divide. It would be like mergers and selling off assets to a business.

    I think that is what people need to realize that the government marriage license isn't the same as the ceremony or commitment made in a church. The government will endorse marriages made by religious institutions, but also offers just the license and before a judge ceremonies that just deal with the legal aspect. The government isn't an extension of the Christian religion, but a body for the people and they look to regulate based on the legal needs and rights of the people. Whenever I see people talk about the moral decay of the country based on Governments not catering to Christianity and enforcing Christian Morality, I wonder if people realize that tyrany from the government isn't actually making anyone moral. Its actually just lazy because its just using the power of the government gun to rule over people they disagree with.

    I don't get this stance that conservatives have taken since the 60s of wanting to micromanage the lives of people with government force on stuff that is supposed to be the choice of the individual.
     
  8. Swans

    Swans Over-Enthused Muse Member

    Joined:
    Friday
    Messages:
    81
    That's a rather naive perspective. Governments across the globe micromanage the lives of people that those people believe are the choice of the individual.
    It would be chaos if there were no rules governing behavior.
     
  9. skyhigh

    skyhigh Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2017
    Messages:
    348
    Location:
    Australia
    "rights"..."human rights". that is all you ever hear from the likes of the gay community and others. it's all about "them". They don't care about anyone but their own desires and "needs". it seems as if they are actively looking for something or someone to be offended by.
     
  10. Milk-Drops

    Milk-Drops Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2012
    Messages:
    3,671
    Location:
    Kewana, Indiana
    Christian:
    No
    No, I just don't subscribe to the US Republican stance. I'm more Libertarian because I disagree with how the Republican party has changed in the last 60 years on its role of the government and its social policy.
    i don't think I was very clear. The US Republican/ Conservative views since the 50s onward have been more about preserving the "Christian" Morallity of the nation. For me I'm a big first amendment person and think that the nation shouldn't favor Christians specifically so I think that its an over reach of the us Government to favor Christian morality specifically and that the rules that are enforced on society are best to promote individual freedom and that if we are to ban behavior and punish it, it should be because the behavior infringes on another person's right to life, liberty, and pursuit to happiness. For example I'm against theft and murder because of a person's right to life and liberty ( in this case to own property). If someone wants in induldge in behavior that would look degenerate to others, they are free to do so as long as it doesn't infringe on another's rights.

    If a Christian views Homosexuality as sinful and doesn't want to partake, that is cool. If the government sets up licensing to make legal matters and family matters simpler and endorse both state and religious unions, also cool. to convince me that some one shouldn't have that right you will have to explain how someone obtaining that license is either a violation of other's rights, or sufficiently redundant.
     
  11. Milk-Drops

    Milk-Drops Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2012
    Messages:
    3,671
    Location:
    Kewana, Indiana
    Christian:
    No
    I don't get what you mean. Right are a defense of an individual or group because its about what one can do. For example my right to Marry who i chose is my decision and effects me and my partner's life. It doesn't effect you. For example, Christians have the freedom of Religion and exercise it how they chose. You guys aren't made by the government to change your religion to cater to the public. The public has the right to become Christians. That doesn't mean that the people can be forced to be Christians or follow Christian morality because we do have the freedom to exercise or be part of any religion or lack of one we choose.
    If you don't like homosexuality, you are free to think its wrong ( This however doesn't mean you will share public opinion). This doesn't mean you can then take your offense as fiat to deny the rights of others.

    For example public spaces are a place where people can express their stances freely. Private spaces still have to follow federal guidelines, but you don't have to give opposing stances a platform since its your property and you can exercise it how wish.
     
  12. skyhigh

    skyhigh Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2017
    Messages:
    348
    Location:
    Australia
    I mean that many in modern society focus more on their "rights" than "responsibilities". Selfishness instead of civic mindedness. of course it is important to be aware of one's right to some extent. otherwise you can be taken advantage of. But I think this has gotten out of hand now.
     
    Uncle Siggy likes this.
  13. Milk-Drops

    Milk-Drops Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2012
    Messages:
    3,671
    Location:
    Kewana, Indiana
    Christian:
    No
    When you say civic mindedness, what does that have to do with homosexuals? I plan on adopting one day and for example work with special needs adults so I give back. Plus I know tons of homosexuals that work and pay their taxes.
     
  14. Uncle Siggy

    Uncle Siggy Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2016
    Messages:
    4,445
    Location:
    OHIO
    Yes the silliness has gotten out of hand, they think their "rights" trump everything else. I.E. they don't want to be held responsible for their actions...
     
  15. Milk-Drops

    Milk-Drops Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2012
    Messages:
    3,671
    Location:
    Kewana, Indiana
    Christian:
    No
    What responsibility may I ask are you talking about? I just want to marry my partner. :tongue unless you are talking about your average entitled american that thinks they can just demand stuff, but that is the majority of people. i could tell you stories from when I used to work retail about how some people think they deserve to be pampered because they exist. :tongue
     
  16. Politico

    Politico Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2016
    Messages:
    1,328
    SCOTUS has done a 180 in the past; it can do so again with the a change in the justices. The prior SCOTUS ruling for homsexual marriage can be overturned with a change of justices. That change has already begun. More judges will be gone and replaced before Trump finishes his term. SCOTUS justices have demonstrated they have no problem disregarding case law, prior SCOTUS rulings, as well as empirical evidence that demonstrates the structural dfiference between heterosexaul and homosexual relationships. A changed SCOTUS can overturn the prior ruling.

    The Baker can win by a "compelled speech" defense until more Justices are replaced.
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2018 at 2:28 AM
  17. skyhigh

    skyhigh Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2017
    Messages:
    348
    Location:
    Australia
    I'm careful how I use the word "trump" these days. :)
     
    Uncle Siggy likes this.
  18. kiwidan

    kiwidan Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2013
    Messages:
    9,590
    Christian:
    Yes
    Exactly, thats why they just get sued under anti-discrimination laws for not baking gays cakes.

    It has to work both ways. If gays can marry then they are happy, and, people don't have to accept it if they dont want due to there religious beliefs.
     
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2018 at 6:58 AM
    jasonc, Milk-Drops and Uncle Siggy like this.
  19. Uncle Siggy

    Uncle Siggy Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2016
    Messages:
    4,445
    Location:
    OHIO
    I was referring mainly to the "skate by on other people's money" crowd, so if homos are a part of that crowd then yes I was referring to them too...
     
  20. Milk-Drops

    Milk-Drops Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2012
    Messages:
    3,671
    Location:
    Kewana, Indiana
    Christian:
    No
    You know I have repeatedly stated I don’t support the couple that sued and support a business’s right to conduct business how they choose.
     

Share This Page