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.

lol your so biest you can't even see the 50 so your point is moot.

What does that even mean?

Excellent reply that doesn't address a single thing that was said though.

 Jihadin wrote:
Anyone consider a double standard here. one can sue a business for discrimination of this nature but state laws prohibit marriage of same sex laws....just saying

There is usually conflict when outdated notions come up against new information. People hold onto these little prejudices like they are a life raft. Most states are going the way of legalizing same-sex marriage but change doesn't happen overnight.

I think that's the point of a free market.

Person A opens a business and sell cakes: Refuses to sell to I don't know person of x and y
Person B opens a business and sells cakes to everyone They make more money

Everyone should be happy especially since money talks and refusing to give them business is your way of talking.

So what should be the standard of marriage two consenting adults? Who which to share benefits?

If that's the case what about this

Father has a daughter who becomes terrible ill and can't get health insurance, Father marry's daughter to give health benefits since she is too old to be on his health plan and is a consenting adult.
The are both consenting adults so it is ok right? Or is the line just behind the gays and just before the incest? Not saying they are the same thing just asking where is the magical line now?

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.

 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.

So your argument is that the law, whatever it happens to be at the moment on any subject is all that matters and it is a strawman to argue that any given law should be changed. Sorry, not buying that.

Here's a few more facts for you.
1. The US constitution expressly forbids laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion.
2. The US constitution is silent about sexual orientation.
3. A right that is expressly granted is being undermined by a "right" that can't be found in the text.

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:

 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.

So your argument is that the law, whatever it happens to be at the moment on any subject is all that matters and it is a strawman to argue that any given law should be changed. Sorry, not buying that.

Here's a few more facts for you.
1. The US constitution expressly forbids laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion.
2. The US constitution is silent about sexual orientation.
3. A right that is expressly granted is being undermined by a "right" that can't be found in the text.

Refusing service to a gay couple is not free exercise of religion, especially when it is against the law.

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:

 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.

So your argument is that the law, whatever it happens to be at the moment on any subject is all that matters and it is a strawman to argue that any given law should be changed. Sorry, not buying that.

Here's a few more facts for you.
1. The US constitution expressly forbids laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Great, exercise away. The law also cannot make any exemptions for you just because your religion says so. That would go against the other half of that whole Amendment, establishing official religions. If it's against the law to discriminate, then it is against the law to discriminate. This is regardless of your religion, because that deals with you and you only. Freedom of religion doesn't deal with you, your religion, and what you are allowed to do to anybody else because of it. Letting you treat someone else differently because of your religion would actually violate their freedom of religion (and their right to have freedom FROM religion).

2. The US constitution is silent about sexual orientation.

The Constitution is also silent about a lot of other stuff. Most laws really.

What the Constitution is not silent about is the equal protection of everybody. It's a real amendment, look it up if you got the time.

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

Yes a right that is expressively granted (the right to be free from unequal protection under the law and from discrimination) protects people from a right that can't be found in the text (the right to project your religious values onto others and provide them unequal treatment under the law).

You are stuck on the idea of what the law allegedly is, rather than what it should be. The determination on what the law is in this and numerous other situations like it will probably take several years to shake out because there are multiple rights express and implied that are at odds with each other. A discussion of what the law is is an extremely complex art that very few here have any qualification to comment on. Most probably haven't a clue of where to begin researching and competenly discussing that issue.

The topic that people here can reasonbably discuss is what the law should be and how the interests of the various people can or should be reconciled. Apparently some here feel that the law is right no matter what and no one should argue that it should be chaged or is wrong, though I suspect this isn't really their belief. It is instead a useful intellectual shortcut in this particular issue since at the moment the state of the law supports their position. I doubt that 20 years ago they would say the law makes gay sex illegal and bans gay marriage so gays need to be quiet and accept the law as is. Or that they would be fine with the law changing in 20 years to banning gay marriage and sex and would then quietly accept the law since that is the law.

Try thinking for a bit about whether there is some way that everyone can live together, follow and live their beliefs without coercing others into actions.

I think the reasonable middle ground is to allow people who are providing nonessential services (especially when those services imply in some way support for actions that the service provider believes to be wrong or immoral) that are readily available by alternate providers to not provide the service.

I am not in the least persuaded by the false analogy to race based non discrimination laws. The victims of those laws were mired in poverty and denied by discrimination the opportunity to get out of the poverty in most cases. Gays are one of the more affluent and financially successful demographics (at least in the US) and do not suffer from the denial of opportunities in the same way that minority races were. Additionaly there is a difference between discrimiation based on unalterable traits like race and discrimination against the behaviorsof a person. I understand the argument that gays are born that way, but in many discrimination situations that isn't relevant as people don't object to who the person is, but what they want to do. While it may be your business what you do in your bedroom, it is not right for you to insist that I support, condone or celebrate those behaviors.

I think it would be wrong for me to refuse to bake a cake for someone who I know to be gay, but it would also be wrong for that person to insist that I bake a cake for his "wedding" to another dude. I'd be happy to bake him a birthday cake, but refuse to bake him a wedding cake were I a baker.

And that refusal would be both wrong and illegal. It's that sort of rational which is the reason why these laws exist. These ignorant views on something that isn't even in the Bibel.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
And that refusal would be both wrong and illegal. It's that sort of rational which is the reason why these laws exist. These ignorant views on something that isn't even in the Bibel.

Huh?

 cincydooley wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
And that refusal would be both wrong and illegal. It's that sort of rational which is the reason why these laws exist. These ignorant views on something that isn't even in the Bibel.

Huh?

About what in particular?

Gwaihirsbrother wrote:
You are stuck on the idea of what the law allegedly is, rather than what it should be.

Are you seriously arguing that it doesn't matter what the law is, just one post after arguing that you should be able to discriminate against others because that is what you think the law is and posting the ultimate laws to back up your point?

It explains a lot if I'm arguing against a guy who quotes the law while at the same time arguing that the law shouldn't matter because he doesn't like it.

I think the reasonable middle ground is to allow people who are providing nonessential services (especially when those services imply in some way support for actions that the service provider believes to be wrong or immoral) that are readily available by alternate providers to not provide the service.

The reasonable middle ground is for the state to only give a license to practice something if that person is willing to practice without discriminating against others.

@d-usa.

You seriously need to study constitutional law a bit before you comment on it. Some of what you are saying is flat out wrong and other parts of what you are saying have only a fraction of accuracy.

One example of this is that contrary to your assertion that the law cannot carve out exemptions for religion, it is expressly required to do so in many situations. Allowing someone to practice their religion is not an establishment of religion.

The 14th amendment which requires equal treatment under the law is a restriction on government not private citizens. Various federal statutes and court decisions have expanded that genral idea into restrictions on private citizens' ability to discriminate, but even there some discrimination is allowed. I don't have to accept a female roomate for example if I don't want to even though refusing to allow females into my home is discrimination.

So what the law says matters again?

So far we have "this is what the law says", followed by "it doesn't matter what the law actually says", followed by "you need to learn what the law says".

Do these views *need* to be based on the Bible?

Do they even need to be based on *any* religion?

If "Bob" is an Athiest and says:

"I do not like the act of homosexuality. I do not believe in the religious institution of marriage, but I do believe that marriage is a contract between a man and a woman. I believe this because in nature, men and women--male and female-- are required for procreation. I believe that homosexuality is against nature. As such, I do not believe that homosexuals should be married, because homosexuals are not sustainable as human beings because they cannot reproduce."

There is nothing religious about his argument (unless you're a nature worshiper, I suppose).

So, to say that these views are "ignorant" and "Bible based" is just simply incorrect and convenient to "bash" religion.

Hatred does not need to be based on religion, or come from religion.

Hatred can just exist.

It does not *need* religion, and does not need to be spread by religion, in order to thrive. Can it spread by religion? Absolutely (unfortunately).

You can have anyone for anything for any reason.

Just follow the law and don't discriminate against people.

 d-usa wrote:
You can have anyone for anything for any reason.

Just follow the law and don't discriminate against people.

so, d-usa,

are hookers legal?

are legal prostitutes also not allowed to turn away gay customers?

 easysauce wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
You can have anyone for anything for any reason.

Just follow the law and don't discriminate against people.

so, d-usa,

are hookers legal?

are legal prostitutes also not allowed to turn away gay customers?

Not for being gay. They could refuse to do certain things, certainly, but that has only to do with the act itself, not them being gay.

 easysauce wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
You can have anyone for anything for any reason.

Just follow the law and don't discriminate against people.

so, d-usa,

are hookers legal?

In the USA? Almost a universal no.

are legal prostitutes also not allowed to turn away gay customers?

Do the states with legal prostitution have laws on the books regarding discrimination against customers?

Go Google stuff.

 d-usa wrote:
So what the law says matters again?

So far we have "this is what the law says", followed by "it doesn't matter what the law actually says", followed by "you need to learn what the law says".

I made an argument to which you and someone else responded essentially too bad that is the law. I explain that I think the law is wrong and you say too bad that is the law. Your position seems to be that the law regardless of what it is is right. I doubt you actually believe that, but that is what you are arguing.

I support laws I believe are just and oppose those I believe are unjust. I have not argued any of your positions are wrong merely because they are contrary to the law. Instead I point out the applicable laws that I support and add to them why I think they are right. The why the law is right part is what is missing from your arguments.

--

An odd thing to me about this discussion is that Jews don't feel the need or desire to force Muslims to marry them, nor Baptists to force Catholics, nor Mormons to force atheists. Why then do gays feel then need to force people who share different beliefs about sexual morals to participate in a celebration of their sexual morals. If all these other groups can leave each other alone, why can't the gays leave people who disagree with them alone?

--

Should a black minister be forced to marry two white supremacists dressed in KKK garb or a Rabbi to marry a couple in Nazi regalia? Should a gay bar be forced to serve someone who enters with a shirt proclaiming all gays should be shot? I think the answer in each instance is no.

Again the type of service being provided is important. Denying a dehyrated person water, or a dying person medical attention is a much bigger problem than denying someone a wedding cake or photograph.

Excellent question Gwaiwhatever

The problem is thus, as I believe it to be:

1) marriage is a frankenstein-ian bastardization and amalgamation of government and religion that should never have happened--ever.

Being married grants certain benefits (taxes, inheritance, retirement, property 'stuff'', etc.).
These are benefits that homosexual people cannot benefit from because they can't legally be married.

That puts them at a LEGAL disadvantage.

Perfect example are 401(k) retirement plans in the US.

A spouse that has inherited the plan from their deceased husband/wife has additional benefits that a non-spouse beneficiary does not get to enjoy.
A non-spouse beneficiary of a 401(k) plan cannot roll any of the $ over for future retirement. They have to take distribution of the $.

2) the definition of marriage has always been based upon religious ceremonies because, quite frankly, the majority of the world's population follows some type of faith that defines marriage as being a man and a woman (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc).

For centuries, men and women have occupied the roles of spouse to one another, and this is how faiths have traditionally interpreted marriage to be (some based biblical, some on other holy works, etc).
There are hundreds and hundreds of years of tradition and belief about the definition of what marriage is and should be.
It's very difficult to overcome, as we are seeing in this day and age.

3) Marriage holds both religious and government "weight". You must be married to get certain government benefits. But if you aren't heterosexual, you cannot marry, and therefore cannot get certain government benefits.

*THAT* to me, is the true "discrimination" and "injustice" is that two gay people cannot be "married" and enjoy the same benefits as two "straight" people.

In government-speak it should not be called *MARRIAGE* and instead a government-sanctioned process called a "Civil Union" (or insert other fancy name) is what should be created that allows *any* two people to enjoy the benefits that what was formerly called "marriage" can enjoy.

Let marriage strictly be a religious ceremony. Take the "state" out of it. You know, the whole "By the power vested in my by God and the State of Blah, I now pronounce...."

When your government does not grant its citizens *ALL* the same and equal rights, *THAT* is when laws should be changed/enacted to grant/restore/ensure that everyone is treated equally under the law and can enjoy all the benefits that a government grants.

* * * * * * *

As far as business discrimination goes?

Well, I am a believer in capitalism...and that a business should not be forced by government into doing business with anybody that the business owner does not want to do business with---for any reason.

In a capitalist society, such businesses will either enjoy a marginal bit of success (i.e. stay afloat) due to a small amount of like minded individuals patronizing the business....or it will fold, because if the prevailing public opinion is contrary to the business owner's opinion, then nobody (or hardly anybody) will patronize the business and it will naturally go bankrupt.

It's similar to my Tesla thread in that State governments have passed legislation dictating that automobile manufactures *must* sell their vehicles in a certain way, through a certain group of people, and cannot deviate.

This is similar in that the government is telling a business owner "You must sell to these people, regardless of what your believe or feel or think and there is to be no exceptions or deviations."

As I have said before, being a capitalist society this is an absolutely PERFECT opportunity for gay-oriented bakeries to fill in and quite possibly flourish where non-gay friendly bakeries have left a gap.


edit: do I believe that it's "right" for people to discriminate based on anything?
Absolutely not.

But, the world is an imperfect place. Humans are imperfect beings. People are going to discriminate....that's the reality. A government can't legislate away discrimination in business practices, at least, not without altering the fundamental ideas behind capitalism and the "free" market, which our country claims to be a believer of/in.

The government can't stop people from being Massingills.

* * * *


Anyway...those are my thoughts on all this and how it could be fixed and should have been avoided.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Anyone consider a double standard here. one can sue a business for discrimination of this nature but state laws prohibit marriage of same sex laws....just saying

There is usually conflict when outdated notions come up against new information. People hold onto these little prejudices like they are a life raft. Most states are going the way of legalizing same-sex marriage but change doesn't happen overnight.

Especially when they are court ordered after a state election went against it.(which is another thing I can't understand. If the courts are going to overturn election results and propositions anyway, why spend all of the money to put it on a ticket and campaign for or against it? It seems the gay marriage supporters could have saved a lot of money by sitting back and let the other side spend the cash to campaign against it and just go to the courts like they did anyway to overturn the results.)

Prestor Jon wrote:

Ramadan is just the month of fasting wherein Muslim don't eat between sunrise and sundown, but they still eat. It's like the employee would be a prisoner on a hunger strike that gets forcefed. I just used it as an example because if a nurse or doctor or any hospital employee was fasting for ramadan and for some reason the hospital demanded that he/she eat lunch that employee could refuse on the grounds of their religion and be legally right in doing so. It's not a great example but there really aren't a lot of plausible instances where an employer or the state would force somebody to do something that clearly violates their religious conscience.

Brother, I know what Ramadan is... Muslims in Iraq went all crazy during that month every time I was there. Then again, some of the guys I went on patrol with knew it was Ramadan, and were purposefully eating, and making a scene of eating, in front of them.


I think a better possible example where a religious conviction would create real issues is with Sikh patients, as the Sikhs have their turbans, and the men wear beards, which I could easily see getting in the way of certain treatments.

@TheMeanDM

The first part of your post very much matches my ideas on the subject. The sacred and secular are tightly interwoven in the subject of marriage and until gay "marriage" was invented recently, there was not much tension in that connection.

The concept of "civil unions" seems to me to be the best way to give everyone as close to what they want as possible without forcing someone to be the loser. I actually think it is a more equitable solution for all persons than marriage is. Basically any two people that want the benefits of marriage should* be able to attain them regardless of what sort of romantic or non romantic relationship they enjoy. For secular purposes your sexual relationship should be irrelevant. 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. The problem is that when the word "marriage" is attached to those rights many people who may want the rights wouldn't want the stigma of "marrying" their sister for example. Civil union, domestic partnership, or some other secular phrase for the arrangement should* be available to any two people that want it with no moral connotations or romantic relationship assumed.

I really don't see the reason why the state should be involved in marriage in the first place. Why should couples get special rights that singles don't?

*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. 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

 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.

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.

 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.

 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...

 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....