Brian,

[quote]
As if it weren’t a large enough invitation for lawsuits, the law prohibits anyone who owns or runs a public accommodation from publishing, distributing, or “displaying in any way, manner, or shape or by any means or method…any communication, paper, book, pamphlet…notice, or advertisement of any kind…that is intended or calculated to discriminate or actually discriminates….”

[/quote]

This paragraph describes the violation of the right to free speech.

The writer is actually sympathetic to "gays" which you will see if you follow the link and scroll down to the comments section. Nevertheless he thinks the State Legislature went to far. The real problem has already been discussed in this thread concerning multiple marriages and even greater deviation. My personal opinion is the definition of marriage is going to have to be fixed in the U.S. Constitution in order to stop courts from legislating from the bench. That is not the function of courts.

I have already described a scenario where other forms of marriage may be allowed but what it should really be is another matter. The trend of no fault divorce was only the beginning of this whole fiasco. If the trend isn't turned around we will probabaly eventually suffer the fate of Jericho in a much broader sense.

It is irrevellant whether the Bible record is true or not. These types of things were only the reasons given for it's destruction. Sept. 11 was only a shot across the bow.

nelson

p.s. I see anonymous has caught the culprit too.

Nelson, I was already perfectly aware in which context your journalist stated that the Colorado bill was unconstitutional.

The bill is an amendment to existing legislation. The effective change is to add sexual orientation to a list of categories in which it was already illegal to discriminate. What is the effective change which makes the bill unconstitutional if it was not already so?

[quote=Anonymous;135401]Because it infringes on the right to freedom of religion, as defined in the 1st Amendment.[/quote]Two responses:

1) No, it doesn't.

2) (* begin sarcasm *) Oh, goody! Now I can point out that many Christian practices are unconstitutional because they infringe on [I]my[/I] right to freedom of religion! (I'll refrain from listing specifics.) (* end sarcasm *)

[quote]If you want to practice homosexuality, that's your problem, just don't make the Christians and others who believe it to be a sin be forced to recognize and condone it legally.[/quote]

(* begin sarcasm *)
Great! Now all the groups that think it's against the law of God to pay taxes to a civil government have a firm legal basis on which to tell the IRS to go to hell!

All the pacifists now have a legal basis for insisting that the Department of Defense cease and desist!

All those who believe it's against God's laws to make an image of a person now have a legal basis for vandalizing all works of art that depict people!

Yessir! Theocracy is great for all religions because all are enabled to demand that all others must not infringe on their religous beliefs even indirectly!
(* end sarcasm *)

[quote]As stated numerous times already in this thread, such a law would infringe on, say, a church's right to preach that homosexuality is a sin based on the doctrine that it is founded upon.[/quote]Oh? Then according to your logic, churches already have had their right to preach infringed-upon because it's prohibited to preach that any legal action is sinful, right?

If not, then why would any proposed gay-rights law make any such infringement?

[quote]Or on their right to refuse to perform a gay marriage ceremony.[/quote]Oh? Where does any proposed legislation affect a church marriage ceremony?

[quote]Et cetera...[/quote]Straw-men ...

[quote]This alone is enough to declare this recent act of state legislation unconstitutional: the U.S. national constitution, in which the right to religious freedom is defined, trumps state legislation and even state constitutions, according to U.S. law.[/quote]The latter is true, but not the former. Apparently you don't actually understand what the U.S. constitution says about religious freedom.

Suppose someone's religion holds that interracial marriage is sinful, and that church refuses to perform ceremonies to marry interracial couples. According to your logic, legislation outlawing racial discrimination in regard to [I]civil[/I] marriage already infringes on that religion's right to preach that interracial marriage is sinful.

Are you (you too, Nelson) willing to admit that according to your logic, civil rights legislation is unconstitutional if some religion holds that racial equality is sinful?

Or are you (you too, Nelson) willing to admit that you are not correctly interpreting United States law?

[quote=cheesehead;135414]Two responses:

1) No, it doesn't.

2) (* begin sarcasm *) Oh, goody! Now I can point out that many Christian practices are unconstitutional because they infringe on [I]my[/I] right to freedom of religion! (I'll refrain from listing specifics.) (* end sarcasm *)



(* begin sarcasm *)
Great! Now all the groups that think it's against the law of God to pay taxes to a civil government have a firm legal basis on which to tell the IRS to go to hell!

All the pacifists now have a legal basis for insisting that the Department of Defense cease and desist!

All those who believe it's against God's laws to make an image of a person now have a legal basis for vandalizing all works of art that depict people!

Yessir! Theocracy is great for all religions because all are enabled to demand that all others must not infringe on their religous beliefs even indirectly!
(* end sarcasm *)

Oh? Then according to your logic, churches already have had their right to preach infringed-upon because it's prohibited to preach that any legal action is sinful, right?[/quote]
No, it's not prohibited to preach against a legal action. However, if it was classified under "discrimination" to preach against such an action, then some gay-rights group could theoretically sue a church for "hate crimes" just because a pastor quoted a passage in the Bible one Sunday that simply says to "refrain from" homosexual behavior. Definitely not hateful language--but under a law prohibiting "discrimination" based on sexual orientation, they could potentially be sued for it.

[quote]If not, then why would any proposed gay-rights law make any such infringement?

Oh? Where does any proposed legislation affect a church marriage ceremony?[/quote]
Because if a church refused to perform a gay marriage ceremony on the grounds that it was against their beliefs, under an "anti-discrimination" law they could be forced to perform it.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;135398]How is adding sexual orientation to that list in state legislation unconstitutional as stated by Nelson and the journalist he quotes?[/QUOTE]

I missed this part. It clearly IS constitutional to add sexual orientation to the list. The part of questionable constitutionality is the prohibition of publishing or displaying certain things. My reading of the snippet is that it doesn't prohibit anything new, but the fear mongers are proposing that it can be interpreted much more broadly.

William

[quote=Anonymous;135416]No, it's not prohibited to preach against a legal action. However, if it was classified under "discrimination" to preach against such an action,[/quote]But that's a straw-man, because AFAIK no one is proposing that.

If there were such language in a law, it would be unenforceable and quickly struck down because it would violate the U.S. constitution.

- - -

As Ross Kaminsky writes in his column:

[quote=Ross Kaminsky]the law says that places of worship are not included as “places of public accommodation” and that protections of free exercise of religion remain in place[/quote]... and that's an admission by an [I]opponent[/I] of the bill.

The bill itself says:

[URL="http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2008a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/BD7A295EB6F4460E872573F5005D0148?open&file=200_enr.pdf"]"Place of public accomodation" shall not include a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.[/URL]

Didn't you bother looking that up? Kaminsky's column has that link to the PDF document.

You (and Nelson) seem not to have made the effort to go to the PDF document to see the actual definition of "public accomodation". If you had done that before posting your fanciful ideas about infringement on religious freedoms, you wouldn't have wasted our time with your "straw man" arguments that are based on ignorance.

[quote=cheesehead;135421]But that's a straw-man, because AFAIK no one is proposing that.

If there were such language in a law, it would be unenforceable and quickly struck down because it would violate the U.S. constitution.[/quote]
Yes, that isn't actually [I]written[/I] in the anti-discrimination law, but if I were a gambling man I'd bet you $1000 that somebody will try to use it for that purpose later on. :smile:

[quote=Nelson;135402]This paragraph describes the violation of the right to free speech.[/quote]
Nelson,

You seem to be massively ignorant of U.S. law. Please don't preach to us about "violations of rights" until you've actually learned what the constitution actually says and at least tried to understand the particular bill under discussion.

[quote]Nevertheless he thinks the State Legislature went to far.[/quote]... and by failing to educate yourself about this matter properly, you merely spread your misunderstanding of what the columnist wrote.

[quote]My personal opinion is the definition of marriage is going to have to be fixed in the U.S. Constitution in order to stop courts from legislating from the bench. That is not the function of courts.[/quote]You have not yet shown us that you even understand the functions of U.S. courts, much less your expertise in matters of rights under U.S. civil law.

[quote=Anonymous;135422]Yes, that isn't actually [I]written[/I] in the anti-discrimination law, but if I were a gambling man I'd bet you $1000 that somebody will try to use it for that purpose later on. :smile:[/quote]So what?

Are you trying to argue that no law should be written in such a way as to allow someone to try to use it for a purpose that's not actually legal? That's impossible.

When you mix objections to imaginary things with objections to the actual law, you weaken your arguments.

[quote=cheesehead;135426]So what?

Are you trying to argue that no law should be written in such a way as to allow someone to try to use it for a purpose that's not actually legal? That's impossible.

When you mix objections to imaginary things with objections to the actual law, you weaken your arguments.[/quote]
No, I'm not trying to argue that. What I'm trying to say is that if someone [i]did[/i] try such a lawsuit, though it may not really be legal, they'd probably get away with it. The case of the lady who sued McDonalds--successfully--after getting burned from some spilled coffee in a drive-thru comes to mind.

[QUOTE=Anonymous;135428]No, I'm not trying to argue that. What I'm trying to say is that if someone [i]did[/i] try such a lawsuit, though it may not really be legal, they'd probably get away with it. The case of the lady who sued McDonalds--successfully--after getting burned from some spilled coffee in a drive-thru comes to mind.[/QUOTE]

*sigh*

[url]http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm[/url]