• 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

If you think that businesses will not have to obey the law I predict that you will be disappointed.

But go ahead and dream. I don't have a problem with that.

I'd agree with you if the Hobby Lobby decision had gone differently.

Now I dont know.
 
>


I've proposed a compromise for a number of years...

1. Pass Same-sex Civil Marriage.

2. Repeal Public Accommodation laws that apply to private businesses​


Same Sex Couple get Civil Marriages. Businesses are not required to provide goods and services to anyone they don't want to. Public Accommodation laws would only apply to government entities and would restrict the ability of government entities to contract with or provide funds to private organizations which have a discriminatory business model.

It's a win/win.

>>>>

I'm conflicted on the topic. I'd love to see a state do so and be a 'test tube' for the businesses. See if people (not the business owners) truly step up and vote with their dollars. And make real choices based on business's stances. Would be very interesting and I bet we'd see just how far those religious and other 'beliefs' went.
 
Sometimes society has to be shoved with a bulldozer. As far as marriage goes, there are always alternative sources and services besides churches.

Well civil rights for blacks and women certainly did.

The Deep South still isnt 'up to speed.'
 
Well now........I guess we can look forward to legalized polygamy now......

What is the problem with that? I dont agree with it but as long as there are not *additional* taxes and benefits, etc, I dont care. It would not affect me at all.

Are you objecting on moral grounds? Not everyone shares your moral views. Or if it would affect you or me, how? I admit, I havent seen both sides of the issue yet.
 
"Pushing" is subjective term. Government force, however, is undeniable.

We should adopt tolerance and let people agree to disagree. Are you against being pro-choice?

There's an element of selectivism to it, to me. It speaks of hypocrisy.

Certainly most...all that I know of...bakeries (for example) bake cakes for 2nd marriages...where one or both participants were adulterersn (not all, some).

They bake cakes for fornicators....couples living together and celebrating their 'anniversaries', birthdays, etc. And altho some are not aware of circumstances, many are aware...and choose to take their money and ignore the sin.

Where I come from in NJ, Jewish bakeries are highly prized....and they bake wonderful hot-crossed buns for Easter. They bake and prepare food for El Eid, the feast that breaks the Muslim fast of Ramadan.
 
It just shows how powerful public opinion can sway justice and legal outcomes.

Is there a reason that the majority opinion concerning marriage should not be law? No harm has been shown, it affects no other marriages....it is a decision that reflects, after the momentum of many years, the opinion of the majority (besides being based on the Constitution).

It is very similar to the civil rights battles and decisions of the '60s...one hundred years after the Civil War....should gays have to wait 100 yrs for 'the right thing?'
 
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.

They can express their opinions. And if they really dont want to serve a particular demographic....do so. I think they should...then the public can clearly see and make their own buying decisions.

However there is a difference between expressing opinion and refusing service based on discrimination.
 
With respect to gender, it depends on the state does it not?

No. Gender is a protected class in every state.

Sexual orientation is a protected class in some states, but not all.
 
If everyone got behind the idea that we should call apples oranges I imagine we would soon see a headline "Apples, once inconceivable, are now Oranges".

does that make the decision any more or less rational? not really

Since this analogy is incorrect, your post is irrelevant.
 
>




Market Street (D/FW area and West Texas)

Mars (Baltimore, Maryland area)
Marsh (Indiana, Ohio)
O'Malia's
Matherne's Supermarkets (Baton Rouge, Louisiana area)
Martin's Super Markets (Indiana, Michigan)
Mayfair Markets (Hollywood, California)
McCaffrey's (New Jersey, Pennsylvania)
Meijer (Midwest)
Met Foods (New York City, New Jersey, Massachusetts)
SuperOne Foods (Minnesota)
Miller's Fresh Foods (North Dakota)
Minyard's (Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex)
Minyard's
Carnival – a Hispanic/international line, in August 2008 was sold to Grocer's Supply (Houston)
Sack and Save – a discount line[1]
Morton Williams (New York, New Jersey)
Mrs. Green's Natural Market (New York)
Murphy's Marketplace (New Jersey)
Natural Grocers by Vitamin Cottage (CO, UT, WY, ID, MT, NE, MO, KS, OK, TX, NM, AZ)
New Deal Market (California)
New Deal Supermarket (Jackson, Mississippi)
New Seasons Market (Portland, Oregon)
Nash Finch Company (upper Midwest)
Nugget Markets (northern California)
Obriens Market (California)
Omni Foods (Massachusetts and New Hampshire)
Petosa's Family Grocery (Edmonds, Washington)
Piggly Wiggly (southeastern US, Wisconsin)
Plum Market (Detroit area)
Preston-Safeway (central Indiana) – unrelated to Safeway Inc.
Price Chopper (Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Pennsylvania, Vermont) – unrelated to Associated Wholesale Grocers in Kansas/Missouri
Publix (southeastern US)
Quality Foods (Georgia and South Carolina)
Quality Markets (New York and Pennsylvania)
R Ranch Markets (southern California)
Raley's (California, Nevada)
Bel Air Markets
Nob Hill Foods
Ray's Food Place (California, Oregon)
Ream's Food Stores (Northern Utah)
Reasors (eastern Oklahoma)
Red Apple (Oregon and Washington)
Redner's Warehouse Markets (eastern Pennsylvania; also in Delaware and Maryland)
Remke Markets bigg's (Cincinnati, Ohio area)
Rice Supermarkets (Houston, Texas)
Riesbeck Food Markets (Ohio and West Virginia)
Pick 'N Save (east-central Ohio)
Robèrt's Fresh Market (New Orleans, Louisiana area)
Roche Bros. (Massachusetts)
Sudbury Farms (Massachusetts)
Roundy's
Copps Food Center (Wisconsin)
Mariano's Fresh Market (Chicago metropolitan area, Illinois)
Metro Market (Wisconsin)
Pick 'n Save (Wisconsin, Illinois)
Rosauers (Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Washington)
Huckleberry's Natural Market (Spokane, Washington)
Roth's Fresh Markets (Oregon)
Rouse's Supermarket (Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi)
Royal Ahold
Giant-Carlisle (Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia)
Giant-Landover (Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Washington DC)
Stop & Shop (New England, New Jersey, New York)
Ridley's Family Markets (Idaho, Nevada, Utah, Wyoming)
Save Mart Supermarkets (California: Bay Area, Central Valley; northern Nevada)
FoodMaxx
Lucky Stores (Bay Area, California)
S-Mart Foods (Lodi and Stockton, California)
Schnucks (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri, Tennessee)
Scolari's Food and Drug (California, Nevada)
Sedano's (Miami, Florida)
Seller's Brothers (Houston, Texas)
Sentry Foods (Wisconsin)
Shaw's and Star Market (New England)
Shop n' Save (Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Missouri, Illinois, Iowa )
ShopRite (Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania)
Sunset Foods (Illinois)
Stater Brothers (California)
Stewart's Shops (New York; Vermont)
Stew Leonard's (Connecticut, New York)
Strack & Van Til (Illinois, Indiana)
Town & Country Food Market – discount division (Indiana; Chicago suburbs)
Ultra Foods – discount division (Indiana; Chicago suburbs)
Straub's Markets (St. Louis, Missouri)
Sullivan's Foods (Illinois)
Sunflower Farmers Market (Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Utah) – owned by founder of Wild Oats
Super One Foods (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, North Dakota)
Superior Grocers (southern California)
Supersol (New York City, Long Island, Westchester)
Supremo Supermarket (New Jersey and Pennsylvania)
Times Supermarkets (Hawaii)
Tops
The Fresh Grocer (Pennsylvania, Delaware)
Thriftway Supermarkets (Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania)
Trade Fair (Queens County, New York City)
Trader Joe's (California, 38 states, Washington, DC)
Treasure Island (Chicago and Wilmette, Illinois) [1]
Trig's (Wisconsin)
Turco's (New York)
Village Market Food Center (Antrim County, Michigan)
Vallarta Supermarkets (Los Angeles; southern California)
Wade's (Virginia)
Wegmans (Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia)
Weis Markets (Pennsylvania, Maryland, New York, New Jersey, West Virginia)
Save-a-Lot (Pennsylvania, New York)
Scot's Lo-Cost (Pennsylvania)
Giant Foods (Binghamton, New York area)
Wal-Mart Neighborhood Market (Florida)
Wayne's Hometown Market (Hoxie, Ar)
Wesselman's (southern Indiana; Louisville, Kentucky area)
Westborn Market (Michigan)
Western Beef (New York City, New Jersey, Florida)
Wilson Farms (New York)
WinCo Foods (Arizona, California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington)
Winn-Dixie* (Florida)
Wise Way (Indiana)
Woodman's Food Market (Illinois, Wisconsin)
Yoke's Fresh Market (Spokane, Washington)
PJP MARKETPLACE (PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA)
Superking Market (California, Orange County)



>>>>

Hey kids, look! There's an overly-talkative libertarian yammering about something or another.

No, I don't know what he's saying either. He just keeps talking though.
 
"Institutionalized racism"?

Not gonna happen. "Corporatization" will counter that very well.

1. Areas of the country where black people couldn't rent a room for the night when traveling.

2. Areas of the country where black people traveling couldn't buy gas from white station owners.

3. Areas of the country where blacks couldn't eat unless they could find a black's only food establishment.

4. And we had systematic discrimination against minorities in terms of how government functioned, such as segregated mass transit (buses, trains, etc.), schools, law enforcement, etc.

5. Even segregation in the military.​



In those days such things were commonplace, but society has changed in the last 50 years and changed a lot. There has been a "corporatisation" where you can't spit without finding a company gas station, movie theater, restaurateur, motel/hotel, etc. Just because we repeal Public Accommodation laws, doesn't mean that things are going to go back to the way they were 3 generations ago. And there are a number of factors that impact this:

1. We are much more mobile society. People routinely travel in a manner unprecedented then both temporary and "permanent" relocation's out of the area they grew up in.

2. We are more informed society and information is much more available today about how a business conducts it self in term so taking care of customers we have Criag's list, Angie's list, Yelp, and a plethora of hotel, restaurant, and review sites for any type of business and it's not just the discriminated against who would choose not to associate with such a business. It includes many in the majority that would shy away from such businesses when discriminatory practices become public knowledge.

3. The "corporatisation" of businesses in America watches the bottom line and having your "brand name" associated with and appearing to condone discrimination has a negative impact on the bottom line. With corporate owned "shops" and franchises who still fall under policies of the home office means that these businesses will not allow or condone what was going on prior to the 60's.​


**************************************************


So the question becomes the balance of the rights of the private business owner to manage their private property according to their desires as compared to the desires of others to have access to that private business. With the widespread discrimination 3-generations ago there may have been justification to say the rights of the property owner needed to be usurped - on a temporary basis - but those times are pretty much gone. The balance was greatly tilted toward discrimination. I think of myself as a Goldwater Conservative quite a bit because Goldwater had the testicular fortitude to stand up against Fedreal Public Accommodation laws, not because he was a bigot or a racist - but because he believed in limited government.

But in general the widespread issues from 60 years ago have been resolved by fundamental shifts in society. Sure there will be isolated instances, thats the price of liberty and dealing with your own issues. A burger joint says - I won't serve a black? OK, walk across the street to Applebee's. A photographer doesn't want to shoot a same-sex wedding? OK, Google or Angie's List another photographer in the area.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all FOR keeping Public Accommodation laws in force in terms of the functioning of government but that is because citizens have an inherent right to equal treatment by the government. There is no such right to equal treatment by other individuals.



>>>>

There are places in this country though where there is only one, maybe two places to get anything, one little locally owned/ran store and a chain store that is run by the locals in town, likely owned by them too, if that. Tonopah, NV is a good example.

Town of Tonopah Nevada - Shopping In Tonopah

Town of Tonopah Nevada - Local Business

Two also in Kemmerer, WY. Both locally owned.

Grocery Stores in Kemmerer, Wyoming with Reviews & Ratings - YP.com

The nearest other place to Kemmerer is over an hour and a half drive away. There are plenty of small towns, especially out west, that only have one drug store. There are stretches of highway where there is only one gas station with many miles in between.

Plus, most doctors are private practices. What if the only doctor in a town refuses to see certain "types" of patients based on race, religion, sexuality, sex/gender, etc.? Afterall, private doctor, still running a business though.
 
I believe that was more of a prediction than an order.

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.

Living up to American ideals of equality under the law is not less important than those other issues. They're all important, and they all need to be solved. But I promise you, when it comes to solving economic problems like inequality or health care, the opposition is far far more potent than those who stood against marriage equality.

Forcing people to behave against their religious beliefs,when they are doing nobody physical harm is revolting, certainly.

Forcing people to conform to your religious beliefs is far more revolting. Also, please explain how other people's marriages require you to "behave against" your religious beliefs?

I've proposed a compromise for a number of years...

1. Pass Same-sex Civil Marriage.

2. Repeal Public Accommodation laws that apply to private businesses

Same Sex Couple get Civil Marriages. Businesses are not required to provide goods and services to anyone they don't want to. Public Accommodation laws would only apply to government entities and would restrict the ability of government entities to contract with or provide funds to private organizations which have a discriminatory business model.

It's a win/win.

That's not a win/win. That's second class citizenship and segregation against gays. I don't think you know what a compromise is. It's not getting most of what you want while providing a tiny sliver of what the other side wants, especially not when the constitution very clearly says that the other side gets everything it wants.

And if you want to forcibly change their minds, you are not tolerant, you are simply an authoritarian who can't win the argument or move on when you don't.

No one is forcibly changing anyone's minds. We're changing the law and changing commerce. Your mind is yours and yours alone.

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.

They're facing consequences for their economic and commercial actions, not for expressing their beliefs. They can talk about their beliefs all they like. They just can't discriminate against people in the marketplace.
 
No. Gender is a protected class in every state.
Certainly most states, but not all. Kentucky is an example of a state where sex has some, but not all, of the protections that apply to race, religion, disability, national origin, etc.
 
Don't get me wrong, I'm all FOR keeping Public Accommodation laws in force in terms of the functioning of government but that is because citizens have an inherent right to equal treatment by the government. There is no such right to equal treatment by other individuals.

Businesses that are open to the public must abide by public standards. Refusing service to a group is an aggressive act - economic warfare.

One cannot speed on the highways and one cannot wage economic warfare in public-access business.
 
Why should white bigots be allowed to refuse to serve black customers? Why would you support bigotry like that?

You reall do not understand how and why democracy works? Of course the government should not be allowed to punish the expression of opinions. Maybe thinking about what makes democracy a more efficient instrument than dictatorship.
 
Nobody forced them to do anything. They took it upon themselves to serve the public.

The problem with that type of logic is that in power you can justify just about anything, which is fine, if you or someone of your ideology are in power.

If not, it is you that goes to jail.
 
Except it wasn't "expressing their views," it was denying service in a business that holds out to the public in violation of public accommodation laws. It's the same reason the government would punish you for a "No Blacks" sign.

It is an expression of a view to refuse to support a ceremony of what the people believe to be evil. That I do not agree with their belief is totally irrelevant.
 
What about forcing them to adhere to your religious beliefs? I guess it is off-topic to refer to a medical procedure but to keep it on marriage....why should people be allowed to force others to conform to their religious beliefs about marriage when they dont believe them?

I am not sure I follow. But it seems to me to be one thing, if someone does not support a ceremony of what they believe to be evil and allowing the government to force them to do so.
 
They can express their opinions. And if they really dont want to serve a particular demographic....do so. I think they should...then the public can clearly see and make their own buying decisions.

However there is a difference between expressing opinion and refusing service based on discrimination.

Refusing service is an expression of belief. And forbidding the expression is similar to forbidding people to say "Hail Hitler!". It is anti democratic. If you do not like somebody's expression of belief then demonstrate, scream at him. But do not give government the authority to prevent him expressing his view. That is absolutely irresponsible and stands in scary contrast to what had made the US exceptional in the past.
 
....
Forcing people to conform to your religious beliefs is far more revolting. Also, please explain how other people's marriages require you to "behave against" your religious beliefs?

....

You obviously have given the matter deep thought and been unsuccessful. Better luck next time around.
 
If I am Jewish, can I refuse to serve someone who has a swastika on their face?
Yes. It's not a protected class like gender, race etc.

Protected class - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Again, it depends on what state you live in. In California, you can apparently walk in to a restaurant wearing swastika lapel pins and demand service. Should they ask you to remove the pins, you can even respond with a "I'm not going to do anything a nigger tells me to do" and the ACLU will defend you and the California courts will side with you.
 
Again, it depends on what state you live in. In California, you can apparently walk in to a restaurant wearing swastika lapel pins and demand service. Should they ask you to remove the pins, you can even respond with a "I'm not going to do anything a nigger tells me to do" and the ACLU will defend you and the California courts will side with you.

It depends on what part of California you're in. In the north, absolutely, it's a liberal fantasy land up there. In the south though, that would never fly.
 
You reall do not understand how and why democracy works? Of course the government should not be allowed to punish the expression of opinions. Maybe thinking about what makes democracy a more efficient instrument than dictatorship.

LOL....."Democracy" does not require protection for bigots. A Democratic society has the same right as every other society to set values and morals within the boundaries of the Constitution to decide what kind of society we want to have.
 
Again, it depends on what state you live in. In California, you can apparently walk in to a restaurant wearing swastika lapel pins and demand service. Should they ask you to remove the pins, you can even respond with a "I'm not going to do anything a nigger tells me to do" and the ACLU will defend you and the California courts will side with you.

Apparently? So there's some case you could link?
 
Back
Top Bottom