[Edward64]

Originally Posted by miami_fan

Are you demanding the ACLU force teachers to subject themselves to reprisals to file lawsuits? If you understand why individual teachers may fear reprisals, I don't understand why you don't understand why the ACLU and activist LGBTQ+ groups may not be able to find teachers willing to expose themselves and their families to everything that would come with filing a lawsuit. This is especially the case when they have options similar to this one right here.

There has been 2 unsuccessful (at time) lawsuits filed already which shows there are teachers willing to proceed?

So the question is not that ACLU and activist LGBTQ+ groups "may not be able to find teachers willing". They have already. The question is why hasn't there been more.

My proposed answer is:

IMO the Occam's Razor are lawsuits are in the works but not yet filed/publicized, or they've not found the valid grounds to contest (e.g. unequal treatment, unconstitutional or whatever). This is much more reasonable IMO than the ACLU, activist LGBTQ+ etc. groups fearing reprisals.

(I'm not sure what you meant by "options similar to this one right here")

You believe that despite everything that you have seen become law in the state level over the last two plus years?

Absolutely, see prior post on Hitler vs peak of Trump. Your above is in response to my quote below.

The environment then, with the Nazi Party, Germany's equivalent of our Exec/Judicial/Legislative branch (?), bent on prosecution of Jews seemed evident. Lost cause. Not so with current day US where we have our, imperfect as it is, still great checks & balances as a whole.

I will ignore A. I am not educated enough on all religious doctrine to speak with any authority on A. Don't really see the difference between a big or small business. I do know about this one though.

Do you still see both sides of the issue? All Christians on the board may correct me if I am wrong but I believe that is also forbidden.

Non practicing Catholic so I only know what I've been reading (and therefore may not be 100%).

The issue is more stringent Christians believe homosexuality (and like) is a big sin. Therefore this Christian cake maker would associate making a cake for LGBTQ+ couple as condoning the sin.

I think many would say, how about the other sins that this Christian has partake in (and therefore condoned). This is a good argument and shows the Christian is hypocritical (like most everyone else to a certain degree) but this Christian chose to make a stand on it. He considered this, right or wrong, as a higher priority issue than, let's say, him stealing or coveting neighbors wife.

I personally struggle with this one. I am unsure. I think recent cases like this has gone in favor of the cake maker.

I am actually interested in what you come up with. It could be something as simple as the Star of David for the Jews and Pride symbols for the LGBTQ community being allowed publicly in a positive sense not as a mark of scorn as the Nazis intended.

Okay, this will take more writing, so will break this out in another post.

The books were removed from public places. The Jews could have also bought the books from Jewish bookstores that were still open at the time as well, no?

I believe all objectionable booked were burned, banned or removed everywhere. I also assume if found on someone there would be severe repercussions. And therefore, Jewish bookstores were not opened after Kristallnacht or soon after. It was a total or near total ban. In this day an age, with social media = books, this won't happen. There will still be plenty of LGBTQ+ content out there.

Beginning on May 10, 1933, Nazi-dominated student groups carried out public burnings of books they claimed were “un-German.” The book burnings took place in 34 university towns and cities. Works of prominent Jewish, liberal, and leftist writers ended up in the bonfires. The book burnings stood as a powerful symbol of Nazi intolerance and censorship.

In the aftermath of the book burnings, the Nazi regime raided book stores, libraries, and publishers’ warehouses to confiscate materials it deemed dangerous or “un-German.”

You are not saying that made the burning the books that were in a public space okay?

Specific to burning books. If there is a group (let's say Proud Boys) that bought objectional books (to them) and decided to burn them, sure why not? The problem is if it was US government sanctioning it.

But they can marry now. The law say so now. Why are you restricting them to something other than marriage? If a religious entity is okay with them getting married, why do you get to overrule that entity.

If the government allows an Elvis impersonator to MARRY two people and it be considered legal, why must anyone much less LGBTQ be limited to civil unions. If the laws changed that civil unions got all the same privileges, then we can let everyone have a civil union and let that be the binding agreement in the eyes of the government and if you want to get married, by all means find the religious institution that will marry you in the eyes of your spiritual entity. I fail to see the need to place a divide in a place that is not currently there and does not seem to bother anyone except those that want the divide?

I believe there are some religious entitles that are okay with LGBTQ+ marriages. But then there are others that are not. Does the law say they can get married in a Church that do not do LGBTQ+ marriages? I don't think law forces a Church to do the marriage.

So I am not saying LGBTQ+ can't get "married". I am saying there are some religious groups that do not allow LGBTQ+ to get "married" in their Church. And the law, as far as I know, allow this restriction (assume due to religious freedom). And therefore, if one cannot get married in Church of their choice, they'll have to go to another more accepting Church or do Civil Union.