Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 73 of 73

Thread: Judge orders Indiana to recognize ailing gay woman's marriage

  1. #71
    Bohemian Revolutionary
    Demon of Light's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    03-07-17 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    5,095

    Re: Judge orders Indiana to recognize ailing gay woman's marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by JasperL View Post
    And you're not aware of the hardships that I listed and you failed to quote? If you're not, maybe spend a bit of time talking to people in the gay community. What you trivialize isn't actually trivial, unless you're not one of them, don't know what they went and still go through, and don't care enough to find out.



    I'm not sure what the point is. If it's not as bad as what blacks faced from when they were brought over here in chains until a decade or two after the Civil Rights Acts were passed, then any hardship and unacceptable discrimination is trivial, meaningless in the big picture, not worth caring about? Why oh why won't the gays just accept their second class status and shut up about it???!!!




    Whatever it takes I guess to dismiss their concerns as trivial, to you, who bears none of their burdens.
    Trivial is your word, not mine. Were I to say that handling a murder case is different from handling petty theft, would you suggest I was trivializing theft? I happen to believe the severity of the mistreatment should determine the severity of the response.

    What is the purpose of the right to free speech, to protest?
    The purpose of free speech is to allow people to dissent from their government to call out actual abuses by corporations to campaign for changes in their situation. Allowing free speech does mean allowing certain things you might consider unseemly, but it should not be used an excuse to destroy people's reputations or livelihoods because you disagree with their political views.

    Besides, I know you cannot agree with your own statement because I can't imagine you defending the right of a white supremacist to spout his views without consequence and serve without protest in a position in the public eye.
    The situations are not comparable. I would say the incidents we have seen are more comparable to the Paula Deen situation and, in case you are wondering, I do feel the same way about her treatment as I do about these cases.

    It would be easier to defend your position if you just admitted the obvious and you just want the gay to shut up.
    I am not suggesting anyone shut up. They can criticize people and they can challenge their views, but that is different from threatening boycotts and waging campaigns against someone for having the wrong opinion. Were he running for public office that would mean something, but business is different. You start shutting people out of employment opportunities for having the wrong political opinion, even when it is not openly expressed, then you are subjecting all businesses to a litmus test where a person's ability to become employed is directly tied to whether they have the right political views. I do not agree with that sort of situation and neither should you.

    That is of course the purpose of public protests - change the culture, assign a cost to holding positions opposed by the "mob."
    A culture that is changed through threats and intimidation is not a free culture at all.

    Besides, what I expect will happen if the SC 'invents' a requirement that states recognize gay marriages performed in other states like states recognize all other marriages is about what happened when the military began allowing gays to serve openly.
    Again, not the same thing. What we are talking about here would be the Supreme Court decreeing from on high, with no meaningful accountability or oversight for their decision, a definition of marriage that directly runs afoul of the core religious beliefs of nearly half the country. There many things I can see happening

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    Again, not relevant. You're picking and choosing which parts of which religion are important enough to be "in conflict," and therefore it's acceptable for the government to impose that restriction on everyone. It's absurd. We're going to decide the law of the United States on how much God dislikes a particular action? Does it work for other religions? If the single core tenet of my religion is that women must wear hats made from ducks, and all who fail to do so burn in hell, is it in conflict with my religion if that's not the law? Can I be exempt from food safety laws in my restaurant if I truly believe at my core that all illness is the will of God?
    Are you done beating on strawmen? The religious individual is the one being forced to do something, not the other way around.

    Of course not. This is America, and that's not how we do things. Funny how it's "state sovereignty" when someone wants to do what Christians want, but it's not state sovereignty when a state wants to make discrimination on the basis of sexuality illegal. (which is the issue in these bakery cases)
    I am fine with discrimination being illegal with religious exemptions, but it is not really about discrimination. A person is being asked to do something that conflicts with a core religious belief. People should be able to say "that's against my religion" when asked to perform a task without being sued and their livelihood destroyed as a result. Restaurants not serving people who are gay or employers firing people for being gay is one thing, but we are talking about making someone bake and decorate a cake for a ceremony celebrating something that goes against a person's religion.

    If procreation is a compelling state interest, then infertile couples and elderly couples should have marriages annulled, right? Or couples who simply do not wish to have children? No, that would be silly.
    Explicitly restricting legal marriages only to those who can procreate would be invasive. Restricting legal marriage to a male and female couple is clear and consistent. The special arrangements involved in marriage incentivize a committed relationship, which is more conducive to procreation. Mind you, this has been explicitly stated in Supreme Court rulings as a basis for the special status of legal marriage. They would not be on unsound legal grounds to make that argument. It would also not be unsound scientifically as committed sexual relationships are generally viewed, even in nature, as about obtaining offspring.

    Number of persons in a contract.
    People often have contracts with multiple parties at the same time or separately. Amending existing contracts to accommodate new contracts is also not abnormal. The argument would have to be really good.

    "It's hard to define" is not how these constitutional arguments work.
    Void for vagueness | Wex Legal Dictionary / Encyclopedia | LII / Legal Information Institute
    "For what is Evil but Good-tortured by its own hunger and thirst?"
    - Khalil Gibran

  2. #72
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where I am now
    Last Seen
    09-11-17 @ 03:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,386

    Re: Judge orders Indiana to recognize ailing gay woman's marriage

    I think if every sane/remotely intelligent, anti-gay marriage individual spend 2 hours alone with an average gay man/woman...I think they would drop their objection to gay marriage.

    Any two sane adults should be able to marry each other...period.

  3. #73
    Outer space potato man

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    51,805

    Re: Judge orders Indiana to recognize ailing gay woman's marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Demon of Light View Post
    Are you done beating on strawmen? The religious individual is the one being forced to do something, not the other way around.
    Forced to gay marry? Oh no!

    I am fine with discrimination being illegal with religious exemptions, but it is not really about discrimination. A person is being asked to do something that conflicts with a core religious belief. People should be able to say "that's against my religion" when asked to perform a task without being sued and their livelihood destroyed as a result. Restaurants not serving people who are gay or employers firing people for being gay is one thing, but we are talking about making someone bake and decorate a cake for a ceremony celebrating something that goes against a person's religion.
    And making me comply with food safety laws goes against my core religious beliefs. The existence of restaurants that discriminate against homosexuals goes against my core religious belief. Making me give flight instruction to Jews goes against my core religious beliefs. Making me comply with aviation safety laws designed to protect my passengers goes against my core religious beliefs.

    Who the **** are you to pick and choose which religious beliefs get exemptions? Why only yours?

    Why is your religious belief exempting you from any law you don't like, but my secular opinion doesn't exempt me from anything I don't like?
    Explicitly restricting legal marriages only to those who can procreate would be invasive. Restricting legal marriage to a male and female couple is clear and consistent.
    Now you've back pedaled way the **** back. You just said procreation is a compelling state interest, but now you say they shouldn't prohibit infertile couples because that's invasive? Sorry, you just torpedoed your own argument here. It's invasive to prevent homosexual couples from marriage for exactly the same reason as it is for infertile couples.

    More importantly, restricting marriage to a man and a woman does not further the interest of procreation, therefore the equal protection test is not passed.

    The special arrangements involved in marriage incentivize a committed relationship, which is more conducive to procreation. Mind you, this has been explicitly stated in Supreme Court rulings as a basis for the special status of legal marriage. They would not be on unsound legal grounds to make that argument. It would also not be unsound scientifically as committed sexual relationships are generally viewed, even in nature, as about obtaining offspring.
    SCOTUS has acknowledged that procreation is one interest in marriage, but they have explicitly rejected the notion that procreation is a requirement. Therefore lack of procreation is not a state interest on which same sex marriage, or infertile marriage, can be banned.



    People often have contracts with multiple parties at the same time or separately. Amending existing contracts to accommodate new contracts is also not abnormal. The argument would have to be really good.
    Not all contracts, and again this is not a protected classification so there is no 14th amendment argument.
    Last edited by Deuce; 04-18-14 at 03:57 PM.
    He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear
    Quote Originally Posted by Lutherf View Post
    We’ll say what? Something like “nothing happened” ... Yeah, we might say something like that.

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678

Posting Permissions

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