• 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

Taylor said:
What law is being violated?
Click to expand...

Their religious conscience. Remember, the reason that the bakers gave is it would go against their religion.
 
Deuce said:
Clearly many do care about the marriage aspect. We've seen it in every state that has legalized same-sex marriage.

As for socially acceptable, the trends on that are also quite clear.

The anti-equality crowd has already lost this fight. It's just a bureaucratic process at this point.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



True, but some losers will continue to shovel sand against the tide.
 
TheNextEra said:
Their religious conscience. Remember, the reason that the bakers gave is it would go against their religion.
Click to expand...
You can't sue somebody for violating their religious conscience. If the woman was denied service simply because she was a woman, and there's no statute that makes it illegal, what sort of legal action can she bring?
 
Taylor said:
You can't sue somebody for violating their religious conscience. If the woman was denied service simply because she was a woman, and there's no statute that makes it illegal, what sort of legal action can she bring?
Click to expand...

Why are you against the first amendment and forcing someone to do something against their religion? I mean you are for the baker and all with THEIR convictions, why are you against Muslim convictions? Are Christian values the only ones to be protected?
 
Taylor said:
You can't sue somebody for violating their religious conscience. If the woman was denied service simply because she was a woman, and there's no statute that makes it illegal, what sort of legal action can she bring?
Click to expand...
Um. true, if there were no such law...

Um.. Civil Rights Act of 1965?
 
Dittohead not! said:
Um. true, if there were no such law...

Um.. Civil Rights Act of 1965?
Click to expand...
.

It's the Civil Rights Act of 1964.


It didn't include women.



Women are covered under State Public Accommodation laws.



>>>>
 
TheNextEra said:
Why are you against the first amendment and forcing someone to do something against their religion? I mean you are for the baker and all with THEIR convictions, why are you against Muslim convictions? Are Christian values the only ones to be protected?
Click to expand...
Huh? I haven't even commented on the baker, who is irrelevant to what I've been discussing. Swap Christian Baker for Muslim Store Owner if you wish, doesn't change how the law works.
 
Just because our government uses homosexuality doesn't mean such public displays of action will be tolerated by such nononese.

Remember pro8?, yeah it appears clear despite the agenda to brainwash mimics 1984 or "invasion of the body snatchers" democracy is anything put a dong and pony sho.
 
Taylor said:
Gender is not federally protected with respect to public accommodations... most (probably all) states now have more stringent law, but whether or not (and the extent) to which gender is protected is a matter of state law:

42 U.S. Code § 2000a - Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation

Current through Pub. L. 113-163. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)
US Code

(a) Equal access
All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I wonder why that is? I guess I can think of a few reasons, such as segregation of restroom facilities.
 
Mr.Nick said:
Well I ever gave about that issue in the first place- what I was merely pointing out to is the fact that those like myself who could care less would still find it highly offensive if some dudes (or even chicks) tried their nonsense in say a restaurant or a venue where the emphasis is family time...

Look gays, just like every "minority" generally self-segregated, weather it's sexuality, interests or even economic status..... It may appear that from a progressive point of few it may be "fear and hatred" but in reality it has nothing to do whit that and everything to do with a) creating a better life for your family and b) self salvation/tradition etc...
Click to expand...

There is nothing offensive or wrong about being gay or gay families unless parents CHOOSE to teach their children such. Just like if parents choose to teach that sex is dirty....you do more harm than good. But of course that's a parent's option but it has nothing to do with gay's right to enjoy restaurants and other family-oriented places.
 
Lursa said:
"Put up signs" "Exclaim"

In other words, feel free to air their opinions publicly.
Click to expand...

Nothing can stop Alice's Restaurant?
 
WorldWatcher said:
....On the other hand businesses could reserve the right to discriminate based on any one (or more) of the selected criteria and maintain that certification on file with the business licensing bureau.
....
Click to expand...

Depending on how that is formulated and handled that sounds like a good idea.
 
WorldWatcher said:
.

It's the Civil Rights Act of 1964.


It didn't include women.



Women are covered under State Public Accommodation laws.



>>>>
Click to expand...

It seems you're right.

It makes sense. It took another half century or so from the time blacks were allowed to vote until women were allowed the same. Equal rights for women seems to lag behind a bit.
 
Lursa said:
Interesting. I wonder why that is? I guess I can think of a few reasons, such as segregation of restroom facilities.
Click to expand...
A good question. Although restrooms do not fall under the definition of public accommodations, they would be covered if part of an establishment that is (i.e. restaurants, hotels, entertainment venues). In theory, it would be legal under federal law (though stupid from a practical standpoint) to start a public outhouse business that catered to only one sex.

The Federal government has no power to prohibit discriminatory public accommodations simply because they are discriminatory or mean-spirited. It must have a good reason to limit the rights of the business owner, therefore Federal accommodations laws need to be crafted as narrowly as possible.
 
joG said:
I can't fathom the American constitution forcing people to break their religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

Only a Christian belief. Otherwise you have all the protections in the world.
 
Dittohead not! said:
It seems you're right.

It makes sense. It took another half century or so from the time blacks were allowed to vote until women were allowed the same. Equal rights for women seems to lag behind a bit.
Click to expand...
Public accommodations is not really an equal rights issue. There is no constitutional right to be treated equally at a restaurant.

The government is not protecting the rights of those being discriminated against, but impinging on the restaurant owner's right to discriminate because it believes it has a legitimate interest in doing so.
 
Last edited:
joG said:
Nothing can stop Alice's Restaurant?
Click to expand...

I do not understand the reference according to my familiarity with "Alice's Restaurant."

Please explain more clearly if possible.
 
Taylor said:
A good question. Although restrooms do not fall under the definition of public accommodations, they would be covered if part of an establishment that is (i.e. restaurants, hotels, entertainment venues). In theory, it would be legal under federal law (though stupid from a practical standpoint) to start a public outhouse business that catered to only one sex.

The Federal government has no power to prohibit discriminatory public accommodations simply because they are discriminatory or mean-spirited. It must have a good reason to limit the rights of the business owner, therefore Federal accommodations laws need to be crafted as narrowly as possible.
Click to expand...

I have a feeling that no business or few businesses feel the need to restrict access to women....I mean really...who's spending all the money? LOL So perhaps it hasnt been challenged.

Of course, women have challenged alot of private and/or membership-only organizations, clubs, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom