Page 42 of 62 FirstFirst ... 32404142434452 ... LastLast
Results 411 to 420 of 616

Thread: Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day brings out supporters, protesters [W:529]

  1. #411
    Global Moderator
    Truth will set you free
    digsbe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Metro Washington DC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,984

    re: Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day brings out supporters, protesters [W:529]

    Quote Originally Posted by Your Star View Post
    No it's not, this is going to be like Loving v Virginia, where the SCOTUS is going to rule and SSM will be legal throughout the whole country, probably within the next 5 years I imagine.

    It is against the constitution to discriminate without a clear state interest, and there is none here. I shouldn't be punished for living in Georgia because my state is ass backwards on this issue.
    Yes it is, the court (at least in MA) has affirmed that it is a state right. The majority of states have banned gay marriage with a Constitutional amendment. It violates the 10th Amendment for the feds to tell the states that they are wrong when there isn't a Constitutional basis for it.

    The problem with "clear state interest" is that it's an ambiguous term. I could say that there is no clear state interest behind allowing the unborn to be killed through legalized abortion because I don't recognize that some people think that fetuses aren't people/human and thus don't deserve the legal right to life (just as some who oppose SSM can do so based on their religious/personal opinions regarding what is and is not a marriage). Abortions and SSM aren't the same issue nor am I trying to link them, but what I am saying is that "clear state interest" could be anything, the people of the state could believe that homosexual marriages destroy society or the sanctity of marriage (which is stupid reasoning) but in the eyes of a state putting the measure to ban or legalize gay marriage on the ballot, that can qualify as state interest (especially when it is approved by a majority vote by people in a state).

    If gay marriage is to be legalized federally a constitutional Amendment must be ratified that does so in my opinion. I don't think it's within the US constitution to give the federal government the power to overturn the majority of state Constitutions on the issue when the US Constitution isn't clear regarding sexuality and marriage. I would love to use the Constitution to say that abortion should be illegal because it violates the constitutional right of human persons, but the concept of "person-hood" is too vague in the Constitution for me to definitively say that with a legal sense and thus legally ban abortions under how the Constitution currently stands.
    When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. -Socrates
    Tired of elections being between the lesser of two evils.

  2. #412
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,601

    re: Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day brings out supporters, protesters [W:529]

    Quote Originally Posted by Your Star View Post
    No it's not, this is going to be like Loving v Virginia, where the SCOTUS is going to rule and SSM will be legal throughout the whole country, probably within the next 5 years I imagine.

    It is against the constitution to discriminate without a clear state interest, and there is none here. I shouldn't be punished for living in Georgia because my state is ass backwards on this issue.
    What "clear state interest" bans polygamy, buying alcohol on Sunday, walking about naked, prostitution or recreational drug use? The constitution DOES NOT SAY everything is an individual right if the state can not show a "clear state interest" in banning it. Many states have different ages of consent and different rules on juvenile justice and MANY other things that are NOT specific individual rights or federal powers.
    Last edited by ttwtt78640; 08-02-12 at 02:24 PM.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

  3. #413
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    36,909

    re: Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day brings out supporters, protesters [W:529]

    Quote Originally Posted by Your Star View Post
    No it's not, this is going to be like Loving v Virginia, where the SCOTUS is going to rule and SSM will be legal throughout the whole country, probably within the next 5 years I imagine.

    It is against the constitution to discriminate without a clear state interest, and there is none here. I shouldn't be punished for living in Georgia because my state is ass backwards on this issue.
    I don't think that being unwilling to expand the definition of "marriage" to include homosexual unions is necessarily discrimination.

  4. #414
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Naperville, IL
    Last Seen
    09-24-12 @ 02:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    11,963

    re: Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day brings out supporters, protesters [W:529]

    To those supporting Chick-Fil-A --> please be advised of small potential risk.

  5. #415
    Global Moderator
    Rage More!
    Your Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    26,362

    re: Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day brings out supporters, protesters [W:529]

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    I am confused since SSM is now LEGAL in six states: Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Vermont and in DC. Are you saying that the courts CREATED (via judicial activism) a SSM law in Iowa?
    No, they ruled that a ban on SSM was unconstitutional according to their state constitution.
    Eat me, drink me, love me;
    Laura make much of me

  6. #416
    Global Moderator
    Rage More!
    Your Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    26,362

    re: Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day brings out supporters, protesters [W:529]

    Quote Originally Posted by nota bene View Post
    I don't think that being unwilling to expand the definition of "marriage" to include homosexual unions is necessarily discrimination.
    Yes it is, you can accept that or not, that's up to you, but it doesn't change the facts.
    Eat me, drink me, love me;
    Laura make much of me

  7. #417
    Global Moderator
    Rage More!
    Your Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    26,362

    re: Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day brings out supporters, protesters [W:529]

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    What "clear state interest" bans polygamy, buying alcohol on Sunday, walking about naked, prostitution or recreational drug use?
    Those things aren't protected under the 14th amendment like gender is, and sexuality for that matter.
    Eat me, drink me, love me;
    Laura make much of me

  8. #418
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    re: Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day brings out supporters, protesters [W:529]

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    What "clear state interest" bans polygamy, buying alcohol on Sunday, walking about naked, prostitution or recreational drug use?
    Actually the aggregate dynamics of polygamy make it unstable on large levels. Furthermore if you look at any culture or subculture that has endorsed polygamy (and we still have some sects of crazies in this country who do), the most common application is exceedingly sexist and leads to whole hosts of problems including the ejection of members of the society so that polygamist families can exist on some whole. Polygamy in practice has dynamics which infringe upon the rights of others and we have seen this in any sufficiently "large scale" (which for polygamy doesn't have to be a high absolute value) of aggregation. Monogamy, two people making the "core" of the family, we do know to be very stable over time.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  9. #419
    Global Moderator
    Rage More!
    Your Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    26,362

    re: Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day brings out supporters, protesters [W:529]

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    Yes it is, the court (at least in MA) has affirmed that it is a state right. The majority of states have banned gay marriage with a Constitutional amendment. It violates the 10th Amendment for the feds to tell the states that they are wrong when there isn't a Constitutional basis for it.

    The problem with "clear state interest" is that it's an ambiguous term. I could say that there is no clear state interest behind allowing the unborn to be killed through legalized abortion because I don't recognize that some people think that fetuses aren't people/human and thus don't deserve the legal right to life (just as some who oppose SSM can do so based on their religious/personal opinions regarding what is and is not a marriage). Abortions and SSM aren't the same issue nor am I trying to link them, but what I am saying is that "clear state interest" could be anything, the people of the state could believe that homosexual marriages destroy society or the sanctity of marriage (which is stupid reasoning) but in the eyes of a state putting the measure to ban or legalize gay marriage on the ballot, that can qualify as state interest (especially when it is approved by a majority vote by people in a state).

    If gay marriage is to be legalized federally a constitutional Amendment must be ratified that does so in my opinion. I don't think it's within the US constitution to give the federal government the power to overturn the majority of state Constitutions on the issue when the US Constitution isn't clear regarding sexuality and marriage. I would love to use the Constitution to say that abortion should be illegal because it violates the constitutional right of human persons, but the concept of "person-hood" is too vague in the Constitution for me to definitively say that with a legal sense and thus legally ban abortions under how the Constitution currently stands.
    First off, this isn't about abortion. Start a thread on abortion if you want to talk about abortion, it's nothing but a straw-man.

    And secondly all of those arguments you posted could easily be applied to inter-racial marriage which is actually connected to this issue(unlike abortion) and the SCOTUS has clear precedence on how to handle this. It will be legal through SCOTUs decision within the next 5 years, that is my prediction. And it makes the most sense.
    Eat me, drink me, love me;
    Laura make much of me

  10. #420
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Last Seen
    11-17-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,610

    re: Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day brings out supporters, protesters [W:529]

    Quote Originally Posted by Wake View Post
    That "difference" is a result of personal bias. Yeah, the CEO's religious and he has a differing view on GM. Now, is he going to start the rapture or attempt to kill homosexuals? We don't know and can only speculate/insinuate. Is the man entitled to an opinion without being punished by narrow-sighted mayors? Yes, he does. Am I tolerant enough to allow people to have their opinions without attacking them, yes. Understandably the man's views contrast sharply with yours. That's what makes America great, because everyone has the right to an opinion without being punished. You wouldn't like it if people punished you for holding your opinions either, I'd imagine. We should tolerate all opinions. Actions are what we should not tolerate if they are actually intended to harm others. I think people have gotten so sensitive that they can't resist being nasty and vicious towards those with sharply differing views.
    When are you going to understand the difference between expressing an opinion and supporting legislation that discriminates against people unfairly? Put another way, when are you going to understand the difference between words and actions? Jesus Christ.

Page 42 of 62 FirstFirst ... 32404142434452 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •