Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Imagine the reaction from the right if a gay-owned business tried to refuse service to people for their religion.

Steenking breeders...

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that anyone that with enough religious zealotry to be offended that a gay-owned business wouldn't serve them due to their religious beliefs probably wouldn't be patronizing a gay-owned business in the first place....

They probably already do but don't know it.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Imagine the reaction from the right if a gay-owned business tried to refuse service to people for their religion.

Steenking breeders...

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that anyone that with enough religious zealotry to be offended that a gay-owned business wouldn't serve them due to their religious beliefs probably wouldn't be patronizing a gay-owned business in the first place....

But, but, but the radical gays!

 d-usa wrote:
Facts:

- Same-sex marriage is legal in Idaho.
- Discrimination is illegal in the city
- The ministers made the decision to incorporate as a legal entity that is required to comply with state and city laws (since rectified)

But hey, why deal with facts when hypothetical are so much easier to Strawman.

Facts:
-The city ordinance makes religious institutions exempt
-Ordained people in Idaho don't need a state license to marry people
-Ordained people can't be forced to preside over marriages that violate their religious beliefs
-If the Hitching Post had remained registered as a for profit business it would have been required to allow gay couples to rent it for marriage ceremonies but neither the Hitching Post, nor the municipal, state or federal authorities could force an ordained person from officiating the wedding in violation of that person's religious belief. Either the Hitching Post or the gay couple would have had to obtain the services of an officient that did not have a religious conflict with presiding over the wedding ceremony.

Regardless of the classification of the Hitching Post or the current municipal and state laws in Idaho ordained people still can't be forced to marry gay couples in violation of their religious beliefs.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

But, but, but the radical gays!

Do you mean like the ones in the Wedding Cake incident?

Or the ones that decided the best way to 'boycott' Chick Fil A was to hold make out parties outside the restaurants?

 cincydooley wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

But, but, but the radical gays!

Do you mean like the ones in the Wedding Cake incident?

Or the ones that decided the best way to 'boycott' Chick Fil A was to hold make out parties outside the restaurants?

The ones trying to teach their agenda to corrupt our nations children with GAYNESS!

So all the ones that threaten litigation if you don't agree with them.

Gotcha.

I'm being facetious.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm being facetious.

That is okay, so is cincy.

PhantomViper wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I'm being facetious.

That is okay, so is cincy.

Yeah, I'm bad at sensing that kind of stuff,

Prestor Jon wrote:
[
-Ordained people can't be forced to preside over marriages that violate their religious beliefs
-If the Hitching Post had remained registered as a for profit business it would have been required to allow gay couples to rent it for marriage ceremonies but neither the Hitching Post, nor the municipal, state or federal authorities could force an ordained person from officiating the wedding in violation of that person's religious belief. Either the Hitching Post or the gay couple would have had to obtain the services of an officient that did not have a religious conflict with presiding over the wedding ceremony.

Regardless of the classification of the Hitching Post or the current municipal and state laws in Idaho ordained people still can't be forced to marry gay couples in violation of their religious beliefs.

-True
-Also True.


I think the issue then becomes, who has the legal obligation to seek out an "OK with the gay" officiant? I would kind of assume that it is up to the proprietors of the chapel to find an appropriate officiant, should they be so offended that they "cannot" perform the ceremony. This also leads to several issues that I would think open them up to litigation. I mean, if (hypothetically) you and I were gay, and went to this very chapel and said, "we want to be married on December 7th", and they said, "sure, we need a deposit for the facilities, and also because you're gay and our religious beliefs disallow us from officiating your ceremony we will have to find a new person" and we go ahead with that plan.... December 7th rolls around, the entire wedding party shows up, and are excited for a fabulous time, but are informed that "due to circumstances outside of our control, we were unable to find an officiant for your ceremony".... What then should happen??

IMO, this is where, as a registered for profit business, they MUST honor the agreement that was signed and paid for, suck it up and do the ceremony, or they'd face the risk of some pretty nasty litigation suits.

It's hard sometimes through text.

Regardless of my stance on this particular issue, I'll never understand people insisting that every business cater specifically to them.

I mean, I've never gone to Ebonyz Cutz that's down the street from my house because I want a hair cut there.

 cincydooley wrote:
It's hard sometimes through text.

Regardless of my stance on this particular issue, I'll never understand people insisting that every business cater specifically to them.

I mean, I've never gone to Ebonyz Cutz that's down the street from my house because I want a hair cut there.

I think the thing is though, that should you ever get that itch to say, "ya know what? I think I want to see how well Ebony cutz hair!" and go in there, she should legally have to take your money, and cut your hair.


Sure, she or the business as a whole doesn't cater specifically to you, but that shouldn't mean that they can't/won't serve you.

Well I'd imagine, and now its a certainty, that renting the chapel services are separate from the services of the minister. it is most other places.

*Hall rental can't discirminate.
*You have to get your radioman to God, or justice of the Peace (never a ship captain around when you need one).

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:


I think the thing is though, that should you ever get that itch to say, "ya know what? I think I want to see how well Ebony cutz hair!" and go in there, she should legally have to take your money, and cut your hair.


Sure, she or the business as a whole doesn't cater specifically to you, but that shouldn't mean that they can't/won't serve you.

I guess I just disagree. I don't think any private business that offers a non-essential, luxury service, should have to.

See: http://www.eater.com/2014/10/6/6925273/restaurateur-pens-epic-takedown-of-entitled-yelper

I guess I just don't see myself as entitled to anything.

 cincydooley wrote:


I guess I just disagree. I don't think any private business that offers a non-essential, luxury service, should have to.

See: http://www.eater.com/2014/10/6/6925273/restaurateur-pens-epic-takedown-of-entitled-yelper

I guess I just don't see myself as entitled to anything.

IMO, there's a big difference between the restaurant, and the "hair salon" in your previous example.

I agree completely, 200% with you on the restaurant... They have ample "advertising" of what they do or do not do. Saying "No" to a customer who is wanting something your business does not offer is not discrimination.

I'm assuming, a bit, here that you're the "average" white male gamer. As such, I fail to see how "Ebonyz Cutz" is not equipped to offer its hair cutting services to you, and should you enter that establishment, I would expect that you would get A haircut. Whether it's a good cut, or you're happy with it is fairly irrelevant. The point is, they are a hair cutting place, and so long as you want a hair cut, they shouldn't be allowed to tell you "no" based on your whiteness or your male-ness, etc. hair clippers are hair clippers, as hair sheers are hair sheers. There is not really any such thing as "black hair clippers" or "white hair clippers" So they are fully equipped to handle your "need"

All that said, I, like you probably, wouldn't go to Ebonyz Cutz because they specialize in haircuts/styles that I do not have, nor want. On top of that, I would be so out of place that it'd just be extremely awkward the entire time, and I'm actually happy with the place that I currently go to (they know how to handle my beard, for starters)

I shave my head, so I wouldn't go to Ebonyz anyways (although It did used to be next to a pretty good RC Hobby Shop that has since moved).

Would, "We don't offer gay wedding ceremonies" suffice? I mean, it is a service, just like providing take out food.

 cincydooley wrote:

Would, "We don't offer gay wedding ceremonies" suffice? I mean, it is a service, just like providing take out food.

Under the Idaho city law, that would be illegal.... I think the "better" way of wording it would be, "We only offer [Catholic, Jewish, Baptist, etc] ceremonies" This way, if I'm a Heathen (and I am), and want a Heathen ceremony, I will know before hand, that they "only" offer Catholic ceremonies, which is clearly not what I want.

I think there is also a difference between "not catering to certain people" and "refusing service to certain people".

If A white guy went to a black barber shop I would expect them to inform him "Hey, we really don't cut white hair here and black hair is a lot different. So without that experience your hair will probably look like crap when we are done, but it's up to you." That would be fine with me. "Get out of here whitey" wouldn't be.

I think that there might be a certain overlay between the "private business shouldn't have to serve everybody" crowd and the "I DID build this" crowd. In my opinion a private business gets money from everybody in the community. Gay tax money pays for the road in front of the business, gay taxes pay for the fire and police services, gay taxes pay for the water pipes and sewers. Gays don't get to send in their taxes and include a note saying "don't use any of that to fill the pothole in front of the business that won't marry us". If a business gets public money then they shouldn't get to discriminate.

 dogma wrote:

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:

3. A right that is expressly granted is being undermined by a "right" that can't be found in the text.

So, you're not a fan of natural rights?

No, I have a different definition of what is and is not a natural right than you do. I do not think that there is a natural right to special state privleges to married persons.

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:

I say should in the sense that if it is assumed that marriage will be redifined in a way that changes the thousands of years of history establishing what it is, this is the way the concept should be expressed for secular purposes. I believe that marriage betwen a man and a woman is the only legitimate form of marriage that should be recognized.

No, you don't. At least not per your word:

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:

So if two straight dudes want to marry each other to gain legal benefits, they should be able to, same with two brothers, or a brother and sister, or father and daughter or any other two people that want those benefits.

You just differentiated between "marriage" and "civil unions" and then proceeded equate them.

Perhaps I didn't explain this clearly enough, or perhaps you a just being obtuse. In case it truely isn't clear, I'll try again. My ideal would be for the state to not give any legal recognition to same sex relationships. Given the current nature of society, I understand that my ideal creates significant amounts of tension. I can accept an alternative to my ideal in the form of a state recognized relationship between any two people that want it regardles of sexual preference, familial relationship, romantic intent or any other similar limitation. If you remove all issues of sexuality and romantic connection from the relationship, you diffuse the social tension and it can become a non issue. I don't think this is the best choice, but it is an acceptable alternative to what I believe is the best situation. I am opposed to state recognized "marriage" of same sex couples.

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:

The secular benefits of marriage were largely connected to providing stability for children, the natural result of a heterosexual relationship and impossible result for a homosexual one. There are a number of purely secular reasons to support heterosexual relationships in different ways than homosexual ones.

There are many heterosexual couples that never conceive, either due to inability or the absence of desire.

True, but just because there are are exeptions, doesn't mean that this was not the purpose. If the state were to only grant marriages to people who could or intended to breed it would need to establish a large bureaucracy to investigate fraud and regulate who is and is not able and willing to breed. This would be a big, expensive mess. The simple requirement that the parties getting married be a man and woman is easily, quickly verified and generally effectively targets those for whom the benefits were intended.

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
Perhaps I didn't explain this clearly enough, or perhaps you a just being obtuse. In case it truely isn't clear, I'll try again. My ideal would be for the state to not give any legal recognition to same sex relationships. Given the current nature of society, I understand that my ideal creates significant amounts of tension. I can accept an alternative to my ideal in the form of a state recognized relationship between any two people that want it regardles of sexual preference, familial relationship, romantic intent or any other similar limitation. If you remove all issues of sexuality and romantic connection from the relationship, you diffuse the social tension and it can become a non issue. I don't think this is the best choice, but it is an acceptable alternative to what I believe is the best situation. I am opposed to state recognized "marriage" of same sex couples.

In several posts in this thread, you have pointed out you really think we need to strictly follow the constitution, except for the parts you don't like (the 14th amendment). Par for the course for this stance in my experience.

It's easy to debate with someone that either agrees that laws should be followed or that laws should not be followed. It's a waste of time to debate an ardent follower of the Constitution if that person is following a personal version of the Constitution covered in white-out and corrections. There is a difference between arguing the meaning of a law, but wanting to ignore a law when debating something is different.

Or at least try to be consistent. I like to argue for different laws or against stupid laws like anyone else, but I try to make it clear that I also think current laws should be followed while we advocate for changes.

 dogma wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Why does the state give benefits to married people in the first place? Even if we ignore same-sex marriage for a bit, it seems to me that it'd be rather unfair to everyone who isn't married.

Marriage is a legal contract which people undertake so as to affirm their relationship. And yes, it is unfair to people that are not married, whether or not the relationship is heterosexual. Indeed, that fact underpins the drive to legalize homosexual (not to mention non-heterosexual) marriage.

Relapse wrote:

This is a guess on my part, but I'd say to encourage the formation of families since strong famiies are essential to a strong state.

Strong families often overwhelm the authority of the state, just ask every government in the Middle East or Central Asia.

However, a lot of what is going wrong in the U.S. is blamed on the disintigration of the family unit. If a family functions as it should, it cuts down on the need for social programs and the children are raised with strong sets of values and community, strengthening a good government.

Relapse wrote:


However, a lot of what is going wrong in the U.S. is blamed on the disintigration of the family unit. If a family functions as it should, it cuts down on the need for social programs and the children are raised with strong sets of values and community, strengthening a good government.

Tough to do when marriages are practically disposable nowadays

Isn't the divorce rate in the US close to 50% now?

 cincydooley wrote:

Relapse wrote:


However, a lot of what is going wrong in the U.S. is blamed on the disintigration of the family unit. If a family functions as it should, it cuts down on the need for social programs and the children are raised with strong sets of values and community, strengthening a good government.

Tough to do when marriages are practically disposable nowadays

Isn't the divorce rate in the US close to 50% now?

Yep, which I think totaly undercuts the whole "Gays are making a mockery of marriage" stance. Straights are doing a great job on that front as it is.

Relapse wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

Relapse wrote:


However, a lot of what is going wrong in the U.S. is blamed on the disintigration of the family unit. If a family functions as it should, it cuts down on the need for social programs and the children are raised with strong sets of values and community, strengthening a good government.

Tough to do when marriages are practically disposable nowadays

Isn't the divorce rate in the US close to 50% now?

Yep, which I think totaly undercuts the whole "Gays are making a mockery of marriage" stance. Straights are doing a great job on that front as it is.

Our governor is a once divorced woman who cheated on her first husband with the highway patrolman that was her personal bodyguard during her tenure as Lt. Gov.

Watching her harp on about how the SCOTUS ruling goes against the sanctity of marriage in Oklahoma just pains me...

 d-usa wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

Relapse wrote:


However, a lot of what is going wrong in the U.S. is blamed on the disintigration of the family unit. If a family functions as it should, it cuts down on the need for social programs and the children are raised with strong sets of values and community, strengthening a good government.

Tough to do when marriages are practically disposable nowadays

Isn't the divorce rate in the US close to 50% now?

Yep, which I think totaly undercuts the whole "Gays are making a mockery of marriage" stance. Straights are doing a great job on that front as it is.

Our governor is a once divorced woman who cheated on her first husband with the highway patrolman that was her personal bodyguard during her tenure as Lt. Gov.

Watching her harp on about how the SCOTUS ruling goes against the sanctity of marriage in Oklahoma just pains me...

These are the type that usually seem to crow the loudest, as though empty words compensate for their gaking all over marriage covenents.

 Ouze wrote:

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
Perhaps I didn't explain this clearly enough, or perhaps you a just being obtuse. In case it truely isn't clear, I'll try again. My ideal would be for the state to not give any legal recognition to same sex relationships. Given the current nature of society, I understand that my ideal creates significant amounts of tension. I can accept an alternative to my ideal in the form of a state recognized relationship between any two people that want it regardles of sexual preference, familial relationship, romantic intent or any other similar limitation. If you remove all issues of sexuality and romantic connection from the relationship, you diffuse the social tension and it can become a non issue. I don't think this is the best choice, but it is an acceptable alternative to what I believe is the best situation. I am opposed to state recognized "marriage" of same sex couples.

In several posts in this thread, you have pointed out you really think we need to strictly follow the constitution, except for the parts you don't like (the 14th amendment). Par for the course for this stance in my experience.

 d-usa wrote:
It's easy to debate with someone that either agrees that laws should be followed or that laws should not be followed. It's a waste of time to debate an ardent follower of the Constitution if that person is following a personal version of the Constitution covered in white-out and corrections. There is a difference between arguing the meaning of a law, but wanting to ignore a law when debating something is different.

So unless I support pure anarchy or in the alternative slavish devotion to every dictate of government, I am contradicting myself?

Or at least try to be consistent. I like to argue for different laws or against stupid laws like anyone else, but I try to make it clear that I also think current laws should be followed while we advocate for changes.

So in the days of slavery you would argue it was wrong to harbor runaway slaves, or to hide Jews in Nazi Germany, or for Rosa Parks to not move on the buss, or for Ghandi to do his thing...

All those peeps were totally wrong for doing any of that sort of rebellious, illegal and activist sort of crap. They should have just talked a good game and done nothing except wait for someone to listen to their words and maybe propose legislation which may or may not get passed.

They were definitely in the wrong for acting on their convictions.

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
So unless I support pure anarchy or in the alternative slavish devotion to every dictate of government, I am contradicting myself?

This is what's called a "false choice". There are more options to this argument than what you put forward, one of which is that you are being inconsistent. You opened the box when arguing against the constitutional basis of the ordinance, and when presented with that basis you posited did not exist - the 14th amendment - simply discarded it, and instead started arguing that your fee-fees were what really mattered.

What you are doing here is intellectual Calvinball, and you deserve to be called out for it.

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
Perhaps I didn't explain this clearly enough, or perhaps you a just being obtuse. In case it truely isn't clear, I'll try again. My ideal would be for the state to not give any legal recognition to same sex relationships. Given the current nature of society, I understand that my ideal creates significant amounts of tension. I can accept an alternative to my ideal in the form of a state recognized relationship between any two people that want it regardles of sexual preference, familial relationship, romantic intent or any other similar limitation. If you remove all issues of sexuality and romantic connection from the relationship, you diffuse the social tension and it can become a non issue. I don't think this is the best choice, but it is an acceptable alternative to what I believe is the best situation. I am opposed to state recognized "marriage" of same sex couples.

In several posts in this thread, you have pointed out you really think we need to strictly follow the constitution, except for the parts you don't like (the 14th amendment). Par for the course for this stance in my experience.

 d-usa wrote:
It's easy to debate with someone that either agrees that laws should be followed or that laws should not be followed. It's a waste of time to debate an ardent follower of the Constitution if that person is following a personal version of the Constitution covered in white-out and corrections. There is a difference between arguing the meaning of a law, but wanting to ignore a law when debating something is different.

So unless I support pure anarchy or in the alternative slavish devotion to every dictate of government, I am contradicting myself?.

If you keep on talking about how laws are laws and should be followed while also arguing that laws are wrong and shouldn't be followed, then yes.

You are making this way more complicated than it needs to be. Let me give you a quick summary of my position regarding laws (and following them) during my many years here on Dakka:

1) Laws are the law, you don't get a free pass to not follow a law simply because you think it's stupid. There are plenty of laws that I think are stupid, but I know that I still have to follow them.
2) If I don't like a law I lobby for changes, but I recognize that it is still the law.
3) If I break a stupid law, I deserve the punishment for that stupid law.
4) Civil Disobedience has a place and can be a great tool at making other people realize how stupid or unjust a law is. Civil Disobedience means breaking a law in a public way, getting punished in a public way, and showing others that the punishment (and the law) is unjust. This combines #1, #2 and #3 by recognizing that the law is sovereign, that I am breaking the law and will be punished and using that punishment to lobby for changes.

It's not rocket science. You can argue for new laws while also recognizing the existing law.

Same-sex marriages were against the law for a very long time. People recognized that by not issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. People lobbied for changes and eventually the laws were overturned in the majority of states. They went to court houses to apply for licenses knowing that it violates the law and then they appealed to the court.
Same-sex marriages are now the law. People recognize that by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. People can no lobby for changes and hope that the law will be overturned at a higher level. They can break the laws (and get the punishment) and appeal those punishments to see if they can get it overturned.

This country has a great history of civil disobedience that has affected great and worthwhile changes. The problem is that the majority of people today don't have the guts to actually be punished for their stance anymore and want civil disobedience without the consequences. Civil Disobedience without being willing to take the punishment just results in a bunch of people bitching and moaning and whining that life isn't fair.