I don't have time for detailed comment right now, but at first glance there seems to be sound logic here:

"In Defense of Religious Liberty

Anti-gay bills and the Hobby Lobby case have given religious rights a bad name. But they’re still important to fight for."

[URL]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/03/religious_liberty_the_owners_of_hobby_lobby_have_it_wrong_but_religious.html[/URL]

[QUOTE=cheesehead;369110]I don't have time for detailed comment right now, but at first glance there seems to be sound logic here:

"In Defense of Religious Liberty

Anti-gay bills and the Hobby Lobby case have given religious rights a bad name. But they’re still important to fight for."

[URL]http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/03/religious_liberty_the_owners_of_hobby_lobby_have_it_wrong_but_religious.html[/URL][/QUOTE]

Indeed. Religious rights have great value.

But the right to practice one's religion does NOT include the right to
cause harm to others simply because one's beliefs disagree with others.

Unfortunately, the religious right thinks that their religious rights are
absolute and take precedence over all others. They are wrong. As a
society we must always make judgments as to which rights take precedence
when the rights of different groups come into conflict. As a society, we have
made the decision that the right to be treated equally under the law takes
precedence over the right to discriminate based on religious beliefs.

And the religious right are either too stupid, too ignorant, or too much of
assholes to accept this.

Discrimination against other people because one's beliefs say that those
people are "immoral" in some way does cause harm.

[QUOTE]Yes, I'd be interested to know the origins of the phrase "gay lifestyle".[/QUOTE][COLOR="White"].[/COLOR]

[QUOTE]As always, there is a lighter side to the controversy here in Arizona…[/QUOTE][COLOR="White"].[/COLOR]

Is believing that marriage should be only between one man and one woman, which has turned from a near-universal view to a minority one in barely 15 years in much of the democratic world, still a rational view to hold? Is that view now any more rational than the view that marriage should only be between two people of the same race?

Two commentators, both supporters of same sex marriage, argue from opposite sides of that question.

[URL]http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2014/03/17/gay_marriage_and_racism_there_s_nothing_rational_about_opposing_gay_marriage.html[/URL]

[URL]http://www.slate.com/blogs/saletan/2014/03/18/gay_marriage_bigotry_and_religious_freedom_don_t_shut_down_the_debate_win.html[/URL]

[QUOTE=Brian-E;369411]IIs that view now any more rational than the view that marriage should only be between two people of the same race?

[/QUOTE]

It is probably universally agreed that marriage should only be between
two people of the human race.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;369414]It is probably universally agreed that marriage should only be between
two people of the human race.[/QUOTE]
Right. I guess I may have used the word "race" incorrectly.:smile:
Of course, some opponents of equality in the debate have seriously suggested that the agreement to which you refer is not universal. (Slippery slope...)

[url]http://news.yahoo.com/lawyer-who-defended-california-gay-marriage-ban-says-views-evolving-after-daughter-comes-out-211351193.html[/url]


This kind of thing always reminds me of the [URL="http://thedailyshow.cc.com/guests/marco-rubio/kfahww/marco-rubio"]John Stewart interview with Rubio [/URL]where he talks about something many Republicans seem to have problems with and that is nuance and empathy (which is not to say that Democrats don't also have issues, but it doesn't seem as pervasive).

Either that or there is a deity and She has an incredible sense of humor.

[QUOTE=chappy;371]
...
Either that or there is a deity and She has an incredible sense of humor.[/QUOTE]

And after gays get their marriage and other civil rights,
maybe She'll get back to US atheists and help us get ours.

We know She is funny that way.

I'm very taken by Neal Gottlieb's method of protesting against Uganda's new anti-gay laws. The highest point in Uganda is now apparently graced by a rainbow flag, placed there by Mr. Gottlieb himself after a six-day climb to the summit. And he has written a fitting open letter to Uganda's president about it too.

[URL="http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/man-conquers-ugandas-highest-mountain-and-claims-it-gays250414"]http://www.gaystarnews.com/article/man-conquers-ugandas-highest-mountain-and-claims-it-gays250414
[/URL][QUOTE]‘Your country’s highest point is no longer its soil, its snow or a summit marker, but rather a gay pride flag waving brilliantly, shining down from above as a sign of protest and hope behalf of the many thousands of Ugandans that you seek to repress and the many more that understand the hideous nature of your repressive legislation,’ Gottlieb said in a letter to Uganda president Yoweri Museveni.
‘Despite this, you recently signed legislation into law that allows those born homosexual to be imprisoned for life.
‘This is a disgusting, despicable act that threatens to ruin countless lives. If you had a son, daughter, niece or nephew that was homosexual, would you want her or him to be imprisoned for life?
‘What if you have friends that are closeted homosexuals? Should they be locked up for the rest of their lives? If you were born gay, would you deserve to be imprisoned?’
Gottlieb climbed the mountain with the help of Ugandan guides, who apparently had no idea what the flag stands for and they didn’t ask.
Concluding his letter, he said: ‘If you don’t like said flag on your highest peak, I urge you to climb up and take it down.

[/QUOTE]

[Quote]Concluding his letter, he said: ‘If you don’t like said flag on your highest peak, I urge you to climb up and take it down.[/quote]

Applause!