• 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

joG said:
I think Cat is a boy named Sonny.
Click to expand...
CRUE CAB said "I found "HER" and there is a genetic reason I commented as I did. Three color males are either impossible or extremely rare.
 
Last edited:
doniston said:
CRUE CAB said "I found "HER" and here is a genetic reason I commented as I did.
Click to expand...

Right. I missed the "her". That would make her a girl called Sonny.
 
joG said:
Right. I missed the "her". That would make her a girl called Sonny.
Click to expand...
I actually met and was friends with " A boy named SUE" not the one famous in song, but a transvestite Out in Cal
 
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...

What does any of that have to do with marriage? We're talking about marriage contracts, not laws against PDAs. I find it offensive if you kiss your wife in public, do you care?
 
Taylor said:
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.
Click to expand...
That depends on whether you think the business owners' or the customers' rights prevail, doesn't it?
 
disneydude said:
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.
Click to expand...

Good point.....

1013600_10151599845436863_1084123969_n.jpg
 
Dittohead not! said:
That depends on whether you think the business owners' or the customers' rights prevail, doesn't it?
Click to expand...
There is no constitutional right to be served or constitutional right to be treated equally in a restaurant, so what "customers rights" are you referring to?
 
Taylor said:
There is no constitutional right to be served or constitutional right to be treated equally in a restaurant, so what "customers rights" are you referring to?
Click to expand...

There is also no constitutional right to own a business that is open to the public, uses government resources to ensure that you are able to do business with ease and safety, along with ensuring that competition remains fair (or at least somewhat fair).
 
shrubnose said:
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.
Click to expand...

"Good always prevails"

A good quote my father always repeated to me. It may take thousands of years or one year, but good will always prevail.

The gays shall have their rights like everyone else in this country.
 
Taylor said:
There is no constitutional right to be served or constitutional right to be treated equally in a restaurant, so what "customers rights" are you referring to?
Click to expand...

No, those rights are established by state and federal laws.
 
Dittohead not! said:
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.
Click to expand...

The issues you raise can be addressed in the Congress and the White House without hand-holding from the Supreme Court.
 
roguenuke said:
There is also no constitutional right to own a business that is open to the public, uses government resources to ensure that you are able to do business with ease and safety, along with ensuring that competition remains fair (or at least somewhat fair).
Click to expand...
Really? So if Obama decides he doesn't like tanning establishments, he can have them all closed down and there's nothing the owners could do about it in court because they never had the right to open those businesses in the first place? That's what you believe?
 
Taylor said:
There is no constitutional right to be served or constitutional right to be treated equally in a restaurant, so what "customers rights" are you referring to?
Click to expand...

Is there a Constitutional right to refuse service to someone based on gender, sexual orientation, or ethnicity?
 
1750Texan said:
The issues you raise can be addressed in the Congress and the White House without hand-holding from the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

They could be addressed in the Congress, should be addressed in the Congress, now are they being addressed in the Congress?
 
Taylor said:
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.
Click to expand...

That is awesome judicial reasoning...now all you have to do is take that reasoning and challenge the Civil Rights Act '64 Title II in court.

Good luck with your case.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Is there a Constitutional right to refuse service to someone based on gender, sexual orientation, or ethnicity?
Click to expand...
Yes, but it is not unlimited and can be regulated if the government has a good reason to do so.
 
Taylor said:
Yes, but it is not unlimited and can be regulated if the government has a good reason to do so.
Click to expand...

Oh really? A government with a good reason can decide a business can exclude customers based on gender, sexual orientation, or ethnicity?

What "good reason" would that be?
 
1750Texan said:
That is awesome judicial reasoning...now all you have to do is take that reasoning and challenge the Civil Rights Act '64 Title II in court.

Good luck with your case.
Click to expand...
Don't know why I'd need to challenge it. Perhaps you can point to the section where the act creates a new constitutional right to be treated equally at a restaurant.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Oh really? A government with a good reason can decide a business can exclude customers based on gender, sexual orientation, or ethnicity?

What "good reason" would that be?
Click to expand...
You have it backwards. With good reason a government can decide a business CAN'T exclude customers.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Oh really? A government with a good reason can decide a business can exclude customers based on gender, sexual orientation, or ethnicity?

What "good reason" would that be?
Click to expand...

I believe the legal term is "compelling state interest".

I think private clubs are allowed to exclude "customers" based on those categories.
 
Taylor said:
You have it backwards. With good reason a government can decide a business CAN'T exclude customers.
Click to expand...

I think you stated the reality of the matter. The government has set forth a list of "protected citizens" who are specifically identified as "those who can not be excluded" which is entirely different than the government providing a list of who "can be excluded". If the exclusion reason isn't covered in any of those lists, you can exclude until the day is done. You can't exclude someone because you disapprove of their sexual preferences in a mate, but you can exclude someone if you disapprove of their lifestyle choice of being a KKK member because the law only applies to "those you can not exclude".

It's so complex.
 
Samhain said:
I believe the legal term is "compelling state interest".

I think private clubs are allowed to exclude "customers" based on those categories.
Click to expand...

Private clubs are not public businesses.
 
tres borrachos said:
I think you stated the reality of the matter. The government has set forth a list of "protected citizens" who are specifically identified as "those who can not be excluded" which is entirely different than the government providing a list of who "can be excluded". If the exclusion reason isn't covered in any of those lists, you can exclude until the day is done. You can't exclude someone because you disapprove of their sexual preferences in a mate, but you can exclude someone if you disapprove of their lifestyle choice of being a KKK member because the law only applies to "those you can not exclude".

It's so complex.
Click to expand...

Yep, you can exclude fatties or brunettes or uggos, just so long as you equally apply it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom