• 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

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.

Four Ejected From Cafe for Wearing Nazi Pins Win Civil Rights Case
4 Ejected From Cafe for Wearing Nazi Pins Win Civil Rights Case - Los Angeles Times


Not really "courts" but "court".


The rest of the story appears to be that the case was not appealed because of the insurance company and so not ruled on directly by the California Supreme Court. There appear to be found here -->> Opinions Related to Unruh Civil Rights Act | California Supreme Court Resources


>>>>
 
A case from 1988. And it also happened in California, one of the few states that protect people based on "creed".
That's not true. Many, if not most, states protect people based on creed.
 
Not really "courts" but "court".

I don't have any reason to believe that it would have been decided differently on appeal, so I'll stick with "courts".
 
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.

Really? Gender is federally protected. Can you provide a few examples that show what you mean?

You may be right...we still dont have protection for equal pay for women.
 
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.


If a group of KKK came into my store, I'd ask them to leave.

Is that against the law? (I'm asking, I dont know of any law that protects them or their agenda...or what they'd try to claim)
 
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.

My main point was about a medical procedure which would be off-topic here. And creating laws that forced a religious view on others.

I will rescind the comment. For another place and time.
 
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.

I fully support the business to exclaim, put up signs, etc of their opinions on issues. That might solve the problem right there.
 
Makes you wonder what thing, inconceivable today, will be accepted as normal 30 years from now.
 
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.
Maybe so, maybe not. Why don't you try to test that idea in a restaurant in, say, West Oakland?
 
I fully support the business to exclaim, put up signs, etc of their opinions on issues. That might solve the problem right there.

How exactly do you mean?
 
How exactly do you mean?

"Put up signs" "Exclaim"

In other words, feel free to air their opinions publicly.
 
I fully support the business to exclaim, put up signs, etc of their opinions on issues. That might solve the problem right there.
How exactly do you mean?


Maybe something along these lines:

1. Current Public Accommodation laws are repealed and replaced with - ah - let's call it a "True In Commerce Act" requirement.

2. At the time that a business license is issued or renewed the business is required to file a legally binding "Truth In Commerce" statement. At such time a business verify that they will not discriminate based on conditions determined by the State legislator - those condition being the same ones used currently under Public Accommodation laws: i.e. race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status (some states), parental status (some states), veterans status, (some states), etc. Business who certify they would not discriminate based on any of the listed criteria would be required to inform the public of such legally binding commitment. 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.

3. As a legally binding commitment, such a document would remain on file with the businesses license with the licensing bureau and open for public inspection.

4. The business could also be required to maintain such a statement of intent prominently in a location where the public is aware of the businesses legal practices. Such as at each checkout register, at the entrance to the business used by the general public, as part of any website or online advertising, included with any email solicitations, a statement included in any broadcast advertising (similar to a political candidates "I approve of this message" requirement), and required on billing statements.

5. A business is then required to operate under the model thay select with failure to do so resulting in fines for fraudulant operations (same as they are now for Public Accommodation law violations).

6. A business could update or append their Truth in Commerce statement on file with the business licensing bureau and updated their "signage" only on or after the date of their filing, they would be reponsible for any prior transaction (or discriminatory practices) prior to that date under whatever rules they'd established for that time period.

7. As long as a business operated in either a non-discriminatory model or in a discriminatory model they had registered, they would be free to refuse service based on those conditions without action.​



On other words, a business would be free to discriminate - they would just have to inform the public ahead of time of what their plans were.



>>>>
 
Makes you wonder what thing, inconceivable today, will be accepted as normal 30 years from now.

Interracial furniture polygamy.
 
Really? Gender is federally protected. Can you provide a few examples that show what you mean?

You may be right...we still dont have protection for equal pay for women.
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.
 
Last edited:
As the Supreme Court prepares to decide the future of same-sex marriage--an institution described as "newer than cellphones or the internet by one justice last year--two things are clear.
Despite this year's breathtaking string of lower court victories, the battle for marriage equality hasn't been swift or easy. To the lawyers who devised the legal strategy decades ago, the journey has been arduous, the setbacks plentiful, and the battle scars deep.

And even after the high court rules--most likely striking down state bans on gay marriage at the end of its term in June--the fight won't be over. Another clash looms over the issue of religious freedom.

Read the article here: Gay marriage, once inconceivable, now appears inevitable

It looks like this battle has reached an important point.I don't believe that the 1st Amendment will stop this from happening.

Churches will be able to do what they want to do, but businesses will have to obey the law whether they like it or not.

I don't believe many carry about the marriage aspect - however will gays be socially accepted is a completely different story.
 
I don't believe many carry about the marriage aspect - however will gays be socially accepted is a completely different story.

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.
 
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.

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...
 
Last edited:
inconceivable... I had to chuckle.

I would hope that the SCOTUS finds that this is not a federal issue as it certainly is.
 
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.

I'm willing to bet that there isn't a court in this country that wouldn't rule in favor of a man or woman that was turned away from a business just for being a man or woman, particularly if there was no transgenderism involved.
 
I'm willing to bet that there isn't a court in this country that wouldn't rule in favor of a man or woman that was turned away from a business just for being a man or woman, particularly if there was no transgenderism involved.
As long as it's understood that this is a guess on your part and not necessarily required by law in all states.
 
As long as it's understood that this is a guess on your part and not necessarily required by law in all states.

Do you believe that a Muslim store owner in any state would not face legal action if he (almost certainly would be a man given the situation) were to refuse to serve a woman who was not accompanied by a man?
 
Do you believe that a Muslim store owner in any state would not face legal action if he (almost certainly would be a man given the situation) were to refuse to serve a woman who was not accompanied by a man?
What law is being violated?
 
Back
Top Bottom