• 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 get what you are saying, and it was my position for quite some time. But the harm inflicted may be less if just one baker says no as opposed to 20, but a harm is committed nonetheless. To me, the area that is black and white is the extreme scenario I presented where everyone denies a black man service. I know with certainty that is wrong. I have not found an argument that can reconcile allowing some discrimination but not allowing everyone to discriminate.


It might be, but I doubt it. Some churches still refuse to marry interracial couples, and nobody has forced them to change. If anything, the people who create the change our the members of the church who end up pressuring the church to change from the inside out.

I guess ultimately where I have conflicted feelings in this is that, unlike the scenario with all the racist white people (ie Jim Crow South) I do find myself sympathetic to the bakery owner. Not because of their views per say, but because the couple did have other options I'm sure, and that bakery owner just happened to be the ones chosen to be crucified (pun intended).

However, and you may disagree but follow me on this, I'm very proud of the way race relations are in this country today. Some people go around pretending it's as bad as it was back then, but for me, a millennial, who went to school that was integrated, Racism is a remnant of the bygone era. Even for those in my circles that are black, they don't talk about race in the same way I hear much older folks talk about it. And there's no way we would of progressed as a society were it not for government stepping in and forcing integration. I think because of that lesson, and while SSM is a much smaller issue than racism (especially in the 60's), I do agree that discrimination in any of it's form simply can't be tolerated, and the best way to progress as a tolerant society is to stamp out these situations when they crop up.

My one fear is that we will push this envelope to far, and in the name of equality, will push things that our society aren't ready for, or shouldn't ever occur.
 
One other question; how does this apply to Churches and Marriages. Should a Church be forced into carrying out SSM?

No, churches are special cases, they are allowed to discriminate. Businesses catering to the public are not.

You realize how many injustices wouldn't of been addressed if people just had that attitude? I'm not arguing that we should restart segregation, I just really haven't developed an argument on the topic which is what I was looking for.

Then maybe you ought to get started on that.
 
I did not say there is a health risk, that wasn't the analogy, the analogy is that if a business is excused for one reg, it can be excused for others.....THE SLIPPERY SLOPE.

And again, it was YOUR premise that "if it was just one, well...it isn't so bad....but since there are probably others,well we should do something....even though I am not entirely comfortable with that"..

That is, how can I say...um...""flimsy".

Oh okay, I see what you are saying now. When you said sanitation, that made me think of health risk (people not washing their hands when handling food, that sort of thing).

As far as it being flimsy, I don't dispute that. It's easy in this case to say we are protecting against the extremes, but if I was judge, I don't think I'd rule based on that. In that case, I would rule on what is best for all parties involved, try and find an amicable solution. Perhaps suggest that the Bakery, who might be familiar with others, recommend one (though at this point, I'm sure they could find someone). Again, when I think of someone being forced to do something by the government, that bothers me. And as long as there was an alternative, I'd side with the Bakery, and I'd be sure to limit the ruling as such to not have a larger impact. However, were I at a higher court, with far more to consider, I'd probably go the other way.

It might be flimsy, but in that case, it be my prerogative.
 
I guess ultimately where I have conflicted feelings in this is that, unlike the scenario with all the racist white people (ie Jim Crow South) I do find myself sympathetic to the bakery owner. Not because of their views per say, but because the couple did have other options I'm sure, and that bakery owner just happened to be the ones chosen to be crucified (pun intended).
I understand the conflict. But if it is wrong for everyone to discriminate against a black man because of his race, how is it not wrong for one business to do it? If a town only has one thief, does that mean the thief should be excused?

However, and you may disagree but follow me on this, I'm very proud of the way race relations are in this country today. Some people go around pretending it's as bad as it was back then, but for me, a millennial, who went to school that was integrated, Racism is a remnant of the bygone era. Even for those in my circles that are black, they don't talk about race in the same way I hear much older folks talk about it. And there's no way we would of progressed as a society were it not for government stepping in and forcing integration. I think because of that lesson, and while SSM is a much smaller issue than racism (especially in the 60's), I do agree that discrimination in any of it's form simply can't be tolerated, and the best way to progress as a tolerant society is to stamp out these situations when they crop up.

My one fear is that we will push this envelope to far, and in the name of equality, will push things that our society aren't ready for, or shouldn't ever occur.
I am also a millennial that has grown up in similar circumstances. Where I am in CA, the white population does not even make up a plurality of people. And I don't really care, and neither does anyone my age. My high school was very integrated as well. But I don't think the same is necessarily true for all regions in the country. In Alabama in 2000, 40% of people voted to keep their interracial marriage ban--even though it had absolutely no effect. And although I feel our generation is better at this overall, the older generations are still in power controlling the policy or owning the businesses.

But we have come far around the country from where we were decades ago. I don't think that can be denied. I think a clearer understanding of what categories are "aggressive" discrimination would do a lot of good. For example, barring a known shoplifter from coming into your store isn't a problem. Nor should barring some naked guy from walking in. I think the line is drawn somewhere along the lines of things that are inherent.
 
I understand the conflict. But if it is wrong for everyone to discriminate against a black man because of his race, how is it not wrong for one business to do it? If a town only has one thief, does that mean the thief should be excused?

I am also a millennial that has grown up in similar circumstances. Where I am in CA, the white population does not even make up a plurality of people. And I don't really care, and neither does anyone my age. My high school was very integrated as well. But I don't think the same is necessarily true for all regions in the country. In Alabama in 2000, 40% of people voted to keep their interracial marriage ban--even though it had absolutely no effect. And although I feel our generation is better at this overall, the older generations are still in power controlling the policy or owning the businesses.

But we have come far around the country from where we were decades ago. I don't think that can be denied. I think a clearer understanding of what categories are "aggressive" discrimination would do a lot of good. For example, barring a known shoplifter from coming into your store isn't a problem. Nor should barring some naked guy from walking in. I think the line is drawn somewhere along the lines of things that are inherent.

I'd be very curious if the same vote occurred today, what the results would be, seeing as how far the nation has swung on the issue of SSM.

You don't see a public safety risk with having a nudist walking on the streets where cars are driving by? Perhaps in CA it wouldn't turn as many heads, but I think in rural communities, like the one I lived in, it has the potential to cause accidents and thus endangering the public. Hell, accidents have been caused by less distracting things than a nude person.
 
I'd be very curious if the same vote occurred today, what the results would be, seeing as how far the nation has swung on the issue of SSM.

You don't see a public safety risk with having a nudist walking on the streets where cars are driving by? Perhaps in CA it wouldn't turn as many heads, but I think in rural communities, like the one I lived in, it has the potential to cause accidents and thus endangering the public. Hell, accidents have been caused by less distracting things than a nude person.
I'm not sure how much different it would be. I said barring a nudist isn't a problem.
 
Oh okay, I see what you are saying now. When you said sanitation, that made me think of health risk (people not washing their hands when handling food, that sort of thing).

As far as it being flimsy, I don't dispute that. It's easy in this case to say we are protecting against the extremes, but if I was judge, I don't think I'd rule based on that. In that case, I would rule on what is best for all parties involved, try and find an amicable solution. Perhaps suggest that the Bakery, who might be familiar with others, recommend one (though at this point, I'm sure they could find someone). Again, when I think of someone being forced to do something by the government, that bothers me. And as long as there was an alternative, I'd side with the Bakery, and I'd be sure to limit the ruling as such to not have a larger impact. However, were I at a higher court, with far more to consider, I'd probably go the other way.

It might be flimsy, but in that case, it be my prerogative.
You are excusing a business from following a regulation and justifying by saying they should not forced to follow regulatory provisions.

BS.

If a business is excused you are creating a slope down which law is pointless. If the business does not wish to follow regulatory provisions, then what is the point of having any? It again is as if Jim Crow never existed and we don't have to understand how we have gotten to this point.
 
You are excusing a business from following a regulation and justifying by saying they should not forced to follow regulatory provisions.

BS.

If a business is excused you are creating a slope down which law is pointless. If the business does not wish to follow regulatory provisions, then what is the point of having any? It again is as if Jim Crow never existed and we don't have to understand how we have gotten to this point.

Unless the ruling is limited, then you don't have the broad effect which which you wish brush.
 
Funny thing is I don't remember the same type of outrage years ago when it was Muslim's that didn't want to serve those simply carrying alchohol or service to disabled people because they had service dogs with them.



>>>>

I must have missed that one.

Was it decided that the Muslim owned businesses didn't have to serve people with service dogs, or who were "carrying alcohol"? That last one is puzzling. Most places, it's not legal to carry an open container... does that refer to someone with a bottle in their grocery bag or something?
 
I must have missed that one.

Was it decided that the Muslim owned businesses didn't have to serve people with service dogs, or who were "carrying alcohol"? That last one is puzzling. Most places, it's not legal to carry an open container... does that refer to someone with a bottle in their grocery bag or something?


They were found to be in violation, appealed and lost on appeal. IIRC it concerned Muslim cab drivers in Minnesota.



>>>>
 
They were found to be in violation, appealed and lost on appeal. IIRC it concerned Muslim cab drivers in Minnesota.



>>>>

So, the result was the same as for the baker who didn't want to bake a "gay wedding cake".
 
Back
Top Bottom