• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gay marriage, once inconceivable, now appears inevitable

I live in Europe and we have freedom and property rights.

Ha! Good one.
smiley-laughing021.gif
 
You tried to be clever but this post is pretty stupid.

First of all, states have powers, not rights. And second, supporting the concept of federalism does not mean that I agree with every action that state governments take.

Do you oppose all public accommodation laws or just the ones that protect gays? Can I put up a "NO CHRISTIANS ALLOWED" sign on my airplane? I don't want any passengers who think they're going somewhere better if we crash.
 
Yes, inevitable is correct. It has been in place in Canada nationally for 15 years now and it ain't going anywhere. It has been in place in many places in Europe a lot longer that.

The SCOTUS should save Americans a decade now and also look at transgendered weddings as that's next.

No where are churches forced to perform weddings and I know of no gays who want that. Occasionally some spoiled brats go ape**** because someone refuses to decorate their cake the way they want it, but fewer and fewer people give a ****.

As the man says, you have ISIS at your back door, Al Qaeda at the side door and Putin huffing and puffing. You still have far too many people without medical coverage, a terrible economy, and the highest incarceration rate in the industrialized world along with a corrupt educational system that doesn't allow you to fire coke addled teachers.

You have a president consistently telling lies and now running a war in a highly questionable manner, a stalled congress and declining trust in government as a whole.


I would humbly suggest the gay marriage issue needs to be buried for good.

Once same sex couples can marry alongside opposite sex couples, then transgendered couples won't matter when it comes to marriage because they will be married legally no matter what their sex is before, after, or during the marriage, unlike it does now.
 
It just shows how powerful public opinion can sway justice and legal outcomes.

Justice, in many ways, is based on public opinion. If the public, as a whole, does not agree something should be a law or that someone broke the law, then they are likely to make that sentiment known, particularly if it is a huge majority of the public.
 
The bakery people seem a good example, though I am sure we could find many more, if we gave it some thought.

Nope. The bakery was not forced to bake any cakes for or participate in any same sex weddings or other homosexual activities of any kind. They are facing consequences, socially, financially, and legally for expressing their beliefs, just as many others do all the time.
 
<snip>

OK, now that the issue of gay marriage has been settled, maybe the country can move ahead on less pressing issues, like ISIS, income inequality, unemployment, health care, illegal immigration, you know, all of those minor issues we're facing.

Amen to that.
 
.... They are facing consequences, socially, financially, and legally for expressing their beliefs, just as many others do all the time.

Which boils down to practically the same thing and is in the end even worse. Actually, it is revolting that Americans could think it in any way acceptable that a citizen may not say his/her mind and that the government should be allowed to punish one for expressing religious or political beliefs.
 
Which boils down to practically the same thing and is in the end even worse. Actually, it is revolting that Americans could think it in any way acceptable that a citizen may not say his/her mind and that the government should be allowed to punish one for expressing religious or political beliefs.

Nope. That is part of society. There is a reason so many people loath WBC, because of their deeply held religious beliefs. They face at least social and financial consequences for those beliefs. People are punished for their beliefs all the time. There are people who have killed others because they believed that certain sins should be punished by death or that they have a right to maintain their family name/honor through killing a family member who "tainted" it. People are held accountable for their beliefs in many situations, even legally.
 
Nope. That is part of society. There is a reason so many people loath WBC, because of their deeply held religious beliefs. They face at least social and financial consequences for those beliefs. People are punished for their beliefs all the time. There are people who have killed others because they believed that certain sins should be punished by death or that they have a right to maintain their family name/honor through killing a family member who "tainted" it. People are held accountable for their beliefs in many situations, even legally.

If the society does not like the baker saying his mind they need not buy his cake. There is nothing to be said against that. To allow government to punish citizens for expressing their views is is really stupid and anti-democratic.
 
If the society does not like the baker saying his mind they need not buy his cake. There is nothing to be said against that. To allow government to punish citizens for expressing their views is is really stupid and anti-democratic.

And the major consequence this couple faced was social and financial due to less people buying their cakes. The public though also has a right to express their views of this couple's views/bigotry. It is not anti-democratic at all for the government to punish citizens for expressing their views in a way that affects others negatively, as this couple did. This couple was free to tell the lesbian couple that they did not approve of their relationship/wedding but that they would still bake the cake for them. Likely the lesbian couple would have went elsewhere without any type of legal problems.
 
...It is not anti-democratic at all for the government to punish citizens for expressing their views in a way that affects others negatively, as this couple did. This couple was free to tell the lesbian couple that they did not approve of their relationship/wedding but that they would still bake the cake for them. ....

Don't be silly. If you want the government to punish citizens for the expression of their views it is of course destructive of democratic process. It hinders information flow and use. That is as true for women that want to wear burqas, for a guy that wants to publish Hustler magazine as it is for cakes to the gay. If you start letting the state interfere with free expression for no reason but hurt feelings, your well on your way away from democratic rule. All you need is a new government that dislikes your view and away with you.
 
Don't be silly. If you want the government to punish citizens for the expression of their views it is of course destructive of democratic process. It hinders information flow and use. That is as true for women that want to wear burqas, for a guy that wants to publish Hustler magazine as it is for cakes to the gay. If you start letting the state interfere with free expression for no reason but hurt feelings, your well on your way away from democratic rule. All you need is a new government that dislikes your view and away with you.

Like this?

Restaurant Chain Settles Charges of Racial Bias - NYTimes.com

Or maybe this?

South Carolina Restaurant Refuses To Serve Black Patrons — Denny’s Redux « Above the Law: A Legal Web Site – News, Commentary, and Opinions on Law Firms, Lawyers, Law Schools, Law Suits, Judges and Courts + Career Resources
 
So? I am only worried about government intervention. A country that forbids free expression of opinions is well on its way to losing its democratic function.

Those cases are about government intervention. Denny's settled with the federal government. The other restaurant could face legal consequences if they find there is legitimate reason to believe that the refusal of service was based off of race (which is certainly sounds like a high probability that it was).
 
Why not? What's wrong with it?

Greetings, tres borrachos. :2wave:

:agree: It sure seems like it could solve some problems - like ending the wondering what your life might be like if you had married someone other than the one you did! And in order to be fair, it would have to be the same for both sexes, BTW! :lamo: That Clint Eastwood movie where she had two husbands comes to mind, but though I can't think of the movie title at the moment, it was hilarious....
 
Greetings, tres borrachos. :2wave:

:agree: It sure seems like it could solve some problems - like ending the wondering what your life might be like if you had married someone other than the one you did! And in order to be fair, it would have to be the same for both sexes, BTW! :lamo: That Clint Eastwood movie where she had two husbands comes to mind, but though I can't think of the movie title at the moment, it was hilarious....

Happy Friday Pol! I'm not sure I could handle more than one Mr. Borrachos!:lol:
 
Forcing people to behave against their religious beliefs,when they are doing nobody physical harm is revolting, certainly.

Why should white bigots be allowed to refuse to serve black customers? Why would you support bigotry like that?
 
Oh, really? Show me the law that says a person who hates blacks has to date

There isn't. But there are laws that says that a person who hates black people can't refuse to rent them a room at their hotel, for example.

Which is what is being talked about here. BUSINESSES being disallowed to discriminate in their open to the public businesses. Not laws disallowing people to discriminate in their private life.
 
If I am Jewish, can I refuse to serve someone who has a swastika on their face?
 
If I am Jewish, can I refuse to serve someone who has a swastika on their face?

The law doesn't apply to prison inmates. :mrgreen:
 
The law doesn't apply to prison inmates. :mrgreen:

LOL. I was just curious to how the law applies in this situation. I have a feeling the Jewish guy would be at fault for not serving the person.
 
Back
Top Bottom