Government monitoring Twitter

[Hax]

They preach tolerance, but they are only tolerant of like-minded views, and totally intolerant of Christianity.

wait who are "they"? Are we still talking about the government? Are you suggesting that the American government is intolerant of Christianity?

[HoreTore]

wait who are "they"? Are we still talking about the government? Are you suggesting that the American government is intolerant of Christianity?

Playing the victim is mandatory in the looniesphere.

[Vincent Butler]

Are you suggesting that the American government is intolerant of Christianity?

I hope the italics are sarcasm, because, yes, I am, can you say ACLU. Well, I guess I shouldn't say they government itself is intolerant of Christianity, but there is an anti-Christian faction in our government.

the Westboro Baptist Church is still going strong

Now I disagree with what they are doing. Yes, they are not restricted, and thankfully we are not at that level of restriction.

Hate speech is restricted, as it should be. As the WBC is not affected by that, the US threshold for what constitutes hate speech is ridiculously low.

The few things you mentioned are all issues where your religious freedom brushes against the freedoms of others. I see no reason why religious freedom for Christians should trump the rights of others, like the right to recognition of a partnership.

Religious freedom is guaranteed by the Constitution. As our founding fathers were executing homosexuals, I doubt they were interested in protecting their right to do whatever. And I have a right to refuse service to somebody if I disagree with them. There were other bakeries that would have done the cakes, but no, they sued to force their lifestyle on somebody else.
The hate speech issue, um…who determines what is hate speech? The government has no right to tell me what I can and can't say, and what opinions I have to hold. I have the right to voice my opinions, even if I am wrong. When the government tells me what I can say, and they punish me if I say what they don't like, then we are getting closer to the USSR, where the KGB would arrest you for voicing the wrong opinion.

[HoreTore]

The right to refuse service is not as black and white as you think it is, see segregation. Refusing service because of traits people are born with(gender, race, sexuality) is in almost all cases ruled to be opposed by your constitution.

Regarding homosexual marriage, the US courts have denied the attempts of the majority to deny the rights of a minority. A clear sign of a civilized and democratic society.

As for what constitutes hate speech: I am in no way claiming to be an expert at US law, but I believe the US courts draw the line at incitement to violence. And yes, the US courts do have a right to tell you what you may or may not do. That's their job. You are free to disagree of course, but any refusal to act according to their will means prison.

[Hax]

I hope the italics are sarcasm, because, yes, I am, can you say ACLU. Well, I guess I shouldn't say they government itself is intolerant of Christianity, but there is an anti-Christian faction in our government

Not so much sarcasm, it was kinda..incredulous really.

In any case, are we still talking about the same country, the one of which the president got into no trouble whatsoever because some people thought he might not be a Christian?

[Vincent Butler]

The courts are there to interpret law, not make law. The law tells me what I can do. For refusing homosexuals, homosexuality is a choice. Even if somebody is attracted to the same sex, it is still a choice to commit sodomy. My race, gender, I cannot help. Sexual orientation, yes, I can. I don't know about the incitement to violence thing.

the US courts have denied the attempts of the majority to deny the rights of a minority

A very small minority with a very big voice, helps having the media on your side. Less than 3% of the US population identifies as homosexual. The courts overrode the will of the people. That sounds like a government no longer of the people, by the people, for the people.

[HoreTore]

The courts are indeed there to interpret law. You do not have the right to interpret law. The US courts have ruled that discrimination based on sexual orientation is against the constitution.

Democracy does not equal a tyranny of the majority, and the people refers to all people, not just a majority of the people. As homosexuals are a part of 'the people', the government did indeed rule in favour of the people and against the majority oppressing a minority. A proper democracy stops any and all attempts to dictate the lives of minorities when the rights of the majority is not affected. Gay marriage does not affect non-homosexuals in any way whatsoever, and so restricting the rights of the homosexuals is not something a democratic society can do.

Accepting that people live differently from yourself when your own life is not affected by their decisions is a fundamental feature of a free society.

You wish to dictate how other people live their lives, and that's authoritarian.

[Vincent Butler]

Sexual orientation is not mentioned in the Constitution, and by the Constitution, that means it is up to the states or people to decide. Again, our founding fathers executed homosexuals, so their rights were not in consideration. And supporting same-sex (not gay) marriage violates a tenet of the Christian religion that America was founded on.

You wish to dictate how other people live their lives, and that's authoritarian.

I am stating my opinion of a particular way of life. You have a different opinion. Does not mean we have to agree. And overall, yes, I think people should live their lives how they want. In this case, it is a direct assault on an institution that has been part of every single culture throughout history, and one that traditionally has been scorned and punished. Only now is it actually gaining any support, and still not that much. Telling somebody that they are wrong, and why they are wrong, is not dictating their life. They are welcome to ignore me, or show me why I am wrong. Again, and let's not start this again, it all comes down to "what do you base your beliefs on". The Morality thread has my statements, I will not respond to anything of that sort on this thread.

By the way, your English is good, are you actually Norwegian, or and English-speaker who happens to be in Norway?

[Pannonian]

Sexual orientation is not mentioned in the Constitution, and by the Constitution, that means it is up to the states or people to decide. Again, our founding fathers executed homosexuals, so their rights were not in consideration. And supporting same-sex (not gay) marriage violates a tenet of the Christian religion that America was founded on.

I am stating my opinion of a particular way of life. You have a different opinion. Does not mean we have to agree. And overall, yes, I think people should live their lives how they want. In this case, it is a direct assault on an institution that has been part of every single culture throughout history, and one that traditionally has been scorned and punished. Only now is it actually gaining any support, and still not that much. Telling somebody that they are wrong, and why they are wrong, is not dictating their life. They are welcome to ignore me, or show me why I am wrong. Again, and let's not start this again, it all comes down to "what do you base your beliefs on". The Morality thread has my statements, I will not respond to anything of that sort on this thread.

By the way, your English is good, are you actually Norwegian, or and English-speaker who happens to be in Norway?

I don't think it's too controversial a statement to say that the founding fathers were rather more militant about separation of powers, which you seem to miss, than they were about homosexuality. You argue that the courts interpret law and not make them, then complain that the government is no longer for the people. The implication is that, for the government to be for the people to your satisfaction, it should have stopped the courts from making this ruling. I believe this view is exactly the definition of tyranny as the founders would have seen it, where one of the arms of the republic overrides another.

Horetore has done military service in the Norwegian army, and is a reservist.

[HoreTore]

Sexual orientation is not mentioned in the Constitution, and by the Constitution, that means it is up to the states or people to decide. Again, our founding fathers executed homosexuals, so their rights were not in consideration. And supporting same-sex (not gay) marriage violates a tenet of the Christian religion that America was founded on.

SCOTUS decisions suggest otherwise.

As for the 'founding fathers'(who are quite irrelevant), they also had slaves. According to your logic, this means slavery must be legal in the US.

They are welcome to ignore me

No, they are not. They cannot ignore you if you create a law saying they cannot act against your opinion. I have no problems if you want to scream at the top of your lungs that doing it in the buttocks is a sin, but you should not be able to convert your opinion into laws restricting the freedom of those who do enjoy doing it in the buttocks.

By the way, your English is good, are you actually Norwegian, or and English-speaker who happens to be in Norway?

I'm fully inbred Norwegian, and my English (as well as my Norwegian) is crap.

English is taught from an early age in Scandinavia.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Sexual orientation is not mentioned in the Constitution, and by the Constitution, that means it is up to the states or people to decide.

Apparently the 14th amendment is not part of the Constitution. See when the only text you read is the Bible, you kind of come across as stupid.

[Pannonian]

The courts are there to interpret law, not make law. The law tells me what I can do. For refusing homosexuals, homosexuality is a choice. Even if somebody is attracted to the same sex, it is still a choice to commit sodomy. My race, gender, I cannot help. Sexual orientation, yes, I can. I don't know about the incitement to violence thing.

A very small minority with a very big voice, helps having the media on your side. Less than 3% of the US population identifies as homosexual. The courts overrode the will of the people. That sounds like a government no longer of the people, by the people, for the people.

Why are you complaining about the courts making law, then complaining that the government is no longer for the people? Aren't the courts and the government separate and kept separate?

[Husar]

The courts are there to interpret law, not make law. The law tells me what I can do. For refusing homosexuals, homosexuality is a choice. Even if somebody is attracted to the same sex, it is still a choice to commit sodomy.

And it is a choice to commit adultery and idolatry and so on. Would you also like to refuse other sinners service or why would you single out homosexuals?

My race, gender, I cannot help.

You say that as though gender were always a clear-cut thing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite#Humans

[Kadagar_AV]

And it is a choice to commit adultery and idolatry and so on. Would you also like to refuse other sinners service or why would you single out homosexuals?



You say that as though gender were always a clear-cut thing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite#Humans

You say that as if gender wasn't a clear cut thing.

There is a extremely small amount of persons with bodily dysfunctions, some even get caught in the middle phase. But by and large, men know they are men and women know they are women.

So to be even more precise, gender indeed is a clear cut thing, but genetics makes mistakes at times. That does not, however, change the basic premises of genders?

[Rhyfelwyr]

And it is a choice to commit adultery and idolatry and so on. Would you also like to refuse other sinners service or why would you single out homosexuals?

I don't think anybody here is advocating refusing to serve homosexuals in general, I think Vincent was referring to a specific case where a baker was asked to bake a cake with a message on it celebrating a homosexual wedding.

To run with your analogy, this would be like asking a baker to bake a cake with icing on it to say, "Happy Divorce!", or "To my lovely mistress, you are so much nicer than my wife!".

[Husar]

You say that as if gender wasn't a clear cut thing.

There is a extremely small amount of persons with bodily dysfunctions, some even get caught in the middle phase. But by and large, men know they are men and women know they are women.

So to be even more precise, gender indeed is a clear cut thing, but genetics makes mistakes at times. That does not, however, change the basic premises of genders?

So the baker would happily bake a cake for two straight transgenders who are going to marry?
Maybe my assumption that he probably wouldn't was wrong, it's not like some christians would call them freaks after all...

Um…yeah. You are either a male or female. Or a freak, if there is such a thing as a human hermaphrodite. What are we, Hutts?

Oh, woops...

Oh and Facebook and a few others disagree with there being only two genders: http://www.denverpost.com/ci_2513448...entity-options

Well, everybody is a sinner (including myself), so if I looked at sin, I could't serve anybody. Now if they wanted a cake, in this example, for say a graduation or birthday party, no problem, provided it's not a homosexually-themed product. But a same-sex wedding, forget it. And they could go somewhere else. Live and let live, right? I don't have to support their lifestyle, they don't have to support my business.

So if a single mother who was never married wanted to buy a station wagon from you, would you also refuse that because you do not want to support her lifestyle?

I don't think anybody here is advocating refusing to serve homosexuals in general, I think Vincent was referring to a specific case where a baker was asked to bake a cake with a message on it celebrating a homosexual wedding.

To run with your analogy, this would be like asking a baker to bake a cake with icing on it to say, "Happy Divorce!", or "To my lovely mistress, you are so much nicer than my wife!".

Yes, and he could put a chick tract into the box that explains how homosexuals end up in hell, I'm not quite sure why writing that text is somehow a big problem for him. I could see the point if someone wanted to buy a weapon but a text on a cake is pretty harmless and plenty of other things people buy are used for sinful activities, like the guy who buys cupcakes to eat them from the belly of his mistress. Just because there is not an obvious text there is no reason to think it's not going to be used in sinful ways. If the customer is honest about it he can say that he disagrees with what the customer is going to do, it's probably a more helpful approach and more in the spirit of evangelizing than to repel and alienate the customer. And maybe the customers would then leave on their own if they don't want to hear about that.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The right to refuse service is not as black and white as you think it is, see segregation. Refusing service because of traits people are born with(gender, race, sexuality) ....

So far, we do not have definitive research that suggests that sexuality is genetically determined. Prima facie, I tend to agree with you -- it strikes me as vanishingly unlikely that there would not be a genetic component/predisposition (why would people choose social ostracism etc. over the centuries if it was truly a "choice?"), but we lack that final study that confirms it.

So far, same sex marriage has been successfully in the courts by asserting that the government should have no role in limiting who I choose to marry unless some form of clear and scientifically confirmable danger (e.g. incest between close relatives) exists. It has also been argued that offering "civil unions" smacks of the separate but equal hogwash associated with Jim Crow laws.

[HoreTore]

So far, we do not have definitive research that suggests that sexuality is genetically determined. Prima facie, I tend to agree with you -- it strikes me as vanishingly unlikely that there would not be a genetic component/predisposition (why would people choose social ostracism etc. over the centuries if it was truly a "choice?"), but we lack that final study that confirms it.

It is my understanding that the US legal system treats sexuality as equal to gender and race(because of, basically, 'born this way'). I didn't attempt to start a scientific debate, I only wanted to state what it is in the eyes of the law.

[Pannonian]

I hope the italics are sarcasm, because, yes, I am, can you say ACLU. Well, I guess I shouldn't say they government itself is intolerant of Christianity, but there is an anti-Christian faction in our government.
Now I disagree with what they are doing. Yes, they are not restricted, and thankfully we are not at that level of restriction.

Religious freedom is guaranteed by the Constitution. As our founding fathers were executing homosexuals, I doubt they were interested in protecting their right to do whatever. And I have a right to refuse service to somebody if I disagree with them. There were other bakeries that would have done the cakes, but no, they sued to force their lifestyle on somebody else.
The hate speech issue, um…who determines what is hate speech? The government has no right to tell me what I can and can't say, and what opinions I have to hold. I have the right to voice my opinions, even if I am wrong. When the government tells me what I can say, and they punish me if I say what they don't like, then we are getting closer to the USSR, where the KGB would arrest you for voicing the wrong opinion.

Don't US private businesses have a freedom to refuse service to anyone they like, or is this on a state by state basis? I know there's a restaurant somewhere in redneck land that serves whites only, and refuses service to blacks and other coloureds, gays, and other non-Aryan acceptable groups. I know that it's not the case in the UK since the Constantine case, where a hotel owner was ruled to be in the wrong for trying to turn away a black would-be customer.