US Judge overturns N. Dakota’s fetal heartbeat abortion ban.

[Atreus21]

Nobody was forcing them to bake anything, its contract law when you agree to do something you need to do it you cannot change your mind last minute make these couples frantically search for a cake that I'm sure cost them more money because of the short notice.

Negative. They can provide a wedding cake for a gay wedding or be fined. That's force.

 

[Atreus21]

A fetus comes from a person. A fetus is no more a person (or a human) than your liver or intestines are.

...by what scientific standard? How do you arrive at that?

 

[PingviN]

I think you have things backwards

Sure, all persons come from fetuses, but a fetus is not a person. Neither is your appendix.

You're not going to win this one, just give it up.

 

[himkhan]

Let me guess, you consider yourself a liberal?

Let me guess, you consider yourself a compassionate conservative?

 

[Texashiker]

Let me guess, you consider yourself a compassionate conservative?

Yes I am.

I believe in compassion and personal responsibility.

Compassion towards the unborn child.

Responsibility towards the parents.

 

[alzan]

Negative. They can provide a wedding cake for a gay wedding or be fined. That's force.

Negative. The business owner can follow the laws that every other public accommodation business has to follow. When business owners break the law they get cited and sued. No force involved.

 

[Moonbeam]

Every deranged mental bigot is obsessed with doing good. Life begins at conception so abortion is always evil. This is how the abortion bigot, obsessed with a moral compass that points falsely to a phony magnetic north and deeply and properly in love with magnetism, becomes a force for evil. The abortion bigot, focused on the humanity of the fetus as a theoretical hypothetical, works his or her evil against women who do not want children. They hide this reality from themselves, this evil they would work against others who do not believe as they do, with the will to force them to obey a phony moral code. They, in their fanatical belief that only the life of the child is at issue, would destroy the right of women to work their own destiny. In its extreme form even the life of the abortion doctor is fair game. There are many many people in this world who have this mental disease. This focus of the abortion antagonist has the same root as any other form of fanaticism, the certainty that one is right and that what one believes is that right is the only right there is. But the only moral absolute there is is that there is a good, and that good and believing that is no guarantee that what one personally believes that good to be is actually what good is. The bigot is blind to anything but what he or she believes. And this is what makes bigots so extremely disgusting. They are the creators of disgusting. Because disgust exists in their mind as a product of delusion, it manifests in reality as a result. They become exactly what they fear, evil monsters wrapped in a delusional belief in the good. Pity them for they know not what they do.

 

[master_shake_]

I hope you take the time to read both articles. What the 2nd article describes is even more disturbing.

This is why I like the situation here in Canada. Since 1988 there have been no laws regulating abortion. It's simply a medical decision/procedure between a woman and her doctor.

Seems to work just fine.

it's cause we have sense to stay out of a womens vagina...

americans on the otherhand need their fingers in every pie...so to speak.

BUILD A DAMN FENCE!

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Ah, the truth comes out.

A fetus being a baby or not has nothing to do with whether it is "viable" or not. But whether the woman(or 14 year old girl) says it is or not.

Correct I don't believe I ever tried to conceal that fact.

 

[jackstar7]

Horrible logic. 5 in 5 lives end in death so we should make murder ok?

Who said that? I am saying it's time to take an active role in making sure these babies come to term, or that the mothers who lose these children are compensated for their loss after being held in mandatory pregnancy camps that must try to eliminate all miscarriages or stillbirths.

Follow through your own logic of protecting every fetus.

 

[Stewox]

I am really glad to hear this. Slowly the judges are ripping apart these asinine laws. State by State.. down they go!

Forward! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUp0XhQ8idw


http://youtu.be/dDtCaKdb9II?t=5m2s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2Fx3vJNY6E

Gives you an idea who these guys are, at the core, and what's behind pro-sacrifice sold as "choice" to the sheeple. That make me fight against "pro-choice" that much more.

 

[Atreus21]

Negative. The business owner can follow the laws that every other public accommodation business has to follow. When business owners break the law they get cited and sued. No force involved.

That is force. If people can be forced to participate in an act to which they have a moral objection (forcing black caterers, or white ones for that matter, to cater a KKK event), then that is force.

 

[smackababy]

That is force. If people can be forced to participate in an act to which they have a moral objection (forcing black caterers, or white ones for that matter, to cater a KKK event), then that is force.

When you open a public business, you agree to abide by public laws. And, as such, you cannot discriminate against people based on certain protected criteria. In every case about gay weddings, the state already had sexual orientation as a protected class. So, are you being forced? Sure, if you want to look at it that way. The exact same as you're forced to not ban blacks and women from your establishments.

 

[chucky2]

Is your brain capable of a different thought?

The answer is yes: His other thoughts are about ponies.

 

[nehalem256]

Negative. The business owner can follow the laws that every other public accommodation business has to follow. When business owners break the law they get cited and sued. No force involved.

So you are arguing that passing a law to force people to conform to your belief system is not in fact forcing them to act how you want?

 

[nehalem256]

When you open a public business, you agree to abide by public laws. And, as such, you cannot discriminate against people based on certain protected criteria. In every case about gay weddings, the state already had sexual orientation as a protected class. So, are you being forced? Sure, if you want to look at it that way. The exact same as you're forced to not ban blacks and women from your establishments.

So then how exactly are you any different than Texashiker?

People, who are incapable of putting themselves in other peoples shoes, like TH, are getting power and changing the rules to ensure their personal beliefs are shoved down the throats of others and they have and will do it by any means necessary.

 

[smackababy]

So then how exactly are you any different than Texashiker?

Except, I am not passing any laws and the laws I support don't discriminate against people. You are free to hate blacks, gays, jews, women, people with the username nehalem256, and whatever. But, I don't support the discrimination of such. Especially, when it is based on something as arbitrary as the color of skin you happen to be born with or who you are sexual attracted to.

 

[nehalem256]

Except, I am not passing any laws and the laws I support don't discriminate against people. You are free to hate blacks, gays, jews, women, people with the username nehalem256, and whatever. But, I don't support the discrimination of such. Especially, when it is based on something as arbitrary as the color of skin you happen to be born with or who you are sexual attracted to.

You mean except for those who are opposed to same-sex marriage.

 

[smackababy]

You mean except for those who are opposed to same-sex marriage.

You can oppose it all you want. Don't have one. You being against ME getting a same-sex marriage is you infringing on my rights, not me infringing on yours for having it. Are we going to make it illegal to paint your house blue now because some people find it unattractive?


You know what, if you can give me ONE logical reason that doesn't involve religion or opinion on why same-sex marriage should be illegal, I will concede my argument for it. Just one! It has to be an argument against the legal union of two consenting adults of the same sex.

 

[nehalem256]

You can oppose it all you want. Don't have one. You being against ME getting a same-sex marriage is you infringing on my rights, not me infringing on yours for having it. Are we going to make it illegal to paint your house blue now because some people find it unattractive?

We are not talking about same-sex marriage being legal. But private citizens being forced to provide services for same-sex weddings.

If I am a painter and I am morally opposed to painting houses blue should I be forced to paint houses blue?

You know what, if you can give me ONE logical reason that doesn't involve religion or opinion on why same-sex marriage should be illegal, I will concede my argument for it. Just one! It has to be an argument against the legal union of two consenting adults of the same sex.

Because they cannot consummate the union

 

[jackstar7]

You know what, if you can give me ONE logical reason that doesn't involve religion or opinion on why same-sex marriage should be illegal, I will concede my argument for it. Just one! It has to be an argument against the legal union of two consenting adults of the same sex.

Be prepared to respond with this question (again):

Can two hetero adults who cannot conceive a child get married?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

We are not talking about same-sex marriage being legal. But private citizens being forced to provide services for same-sex weddings.

If I am a painter and I am morally opposed to painting houses blue should I be forced to paint houses blue?



Because they cannot consummate the union

By Websters they can:
Full Definition of CONSUMMATE

transitive verb
1
a : finish, complete <consummate a business deal>
b : to make perfect
c : achieve
2
: to make (marital union) complete by sexual intercourse <consummate a marriage>

And the business thing even your hero Jan Brewer said there is no logical reason to change business laws to allow businesses to object to serving gays. She said there is not enough evidence of businesses being forced to perform tasks they object to. In the example of a black catering company, the last person to hire them would be a clan meeting and if they did they would be foolish to expect good service. Same with gay couple who go to a bakery and the baker seems uncomfortable with a gay wedding service, do you really want food from that person? The free market has ample protections built into it there are no expectations that ever business perform every task perfectly every time for every customer.

 

[Atreus21]

Be prepared to respond with this question (again):

Can two hetero adults who cannot conceive a child get married?

Under this logic, yes they can. And under same logic gays cannot. Why?

Because of this quote:

A small minority of married couples are infertile. However, excluding sterile couples from marriage, in all but the most obvious cases such as those of blood relatives, would be costly. Few people who are sterile know it, and fertility tests are too expensive and burdensome to mandate. One might argue that the exclusion of blood relatives from marriage is only necessary to prevent the conception of genetically defective children, but blood relatives cannot marry even if they undergo sterilization. Some couples who marry plan not to have children, but without mind-reading technology, excluding them is impossible. Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. The marriage laws, therefore, ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.

Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve.

 

[nehalem256]

By Websters they can:
Full Definition of CONSUMMATE

transitive verb
1
a : finish, complete <consummate a business deal>
b : to make perfect
c : achieve
2
: to make (marital union) complete by sexual intercourse <consummate a marriage>

Considering we are talking about a marital union pretty clearly they cannot.

And the business thing even your hero Jan Brewer said there is no logical reason to change business laws to allow businesses to object to serving gays. She said there is not enough evidence of businesses being forced to perform tasks they object to. In the example of a black catering company, the last person to hire them would be a clan meeting and if they did they would be foolish to expect good service. Same with gay couple who go to a bakery and the baker seems uncomfortable with a gay wedding service, do you really want food from that person? The free market has ample protections built into it there are no expectations that ever business perform every task perfectly every time for every customer.

Apparently the answer is yes.

 

[nehalem256]

Under this logic, yes they can. And under same logic gays cannot. Why?

Because of this quote:

Interesting that although liberals claim that marriage is between any 2 consenting adults that the state's that legalized same-sex marriage didn't also remove prohibitions against marrying family members.

If you are going to go to all of the trouble of changing marriage laws to reflect your beliefs why not actually change them to fully reflect your views on marriage?