• 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 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.
I'm talking only about public accommodations and defending the fact that there is no right to be served guaranteed by the Constitution. Businesses are free to discriminate as they see fit, but (as with many aspects of business operation) this is subject to regulation. (Any "right to be served" is derived from law and can be rescinded.)
 
I'm talking only about public accommodations and defending the fact that there is no right to be served guaranteed by the Constitution. Businesses are free to discriminate as they see fit, but (as with many aspects of business operation) this is subject to regulation. (Any "right to be served" is derived from law and can be rescinded.)

That too. I don't recall anything in the Constitution that grants us the right to demand service from any business.
 
That too. I don't recall anything in the Constitution that grants us the right to demand service from any business.
Yes, exactly. The fact that under federal law a business can discriminate based on sex but not on race is not an equal protection issue, but merely a difference in how we've chosen to regulate public accommodations... which is how all of this discussion got started.
 
Yes, exactly. The fact that under federal law a business can discriminate based on sex but not on race is not an equal protection issue, but merely a difference in how we've chosen to regulate public accommodations... which is how all of this discussion got started.

I think I'm confused about how all of this got into a discussion about SSM. I just realized I'm not in the thread I thought I was in, which is the one about the bakers and the wedding cake.
 
I'm talking only about public accommodations and defending the fact that there is no right to be served guaranteed by the Constitution. Businesses are free to discriminate as they see fit, but (as with many aspects of business operation) this is subject to regulation. (Any "right to be served" is derived from law and can be rescinded.)
That too. I don't recall anything in the Constitution that grants us the right to demand service from any business.
1. The Constitution isn't the only law on the books. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 governs business' inability to discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The Civil Rights Act has been found constitutional, as well as the courts are in the midst of extending these protections to include sexual orientation.

2. Most states have civil protections written into their own state constitutions that go beyond Federal laws.
 
1. The Constitution isn't the only law on the books. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 governs business' inability to discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The Civil Rights Act has been found constitutional, as well as the courts are in the midst of extending these protections to include sexual orientation.

2. Most states have civil protections written into their own state constitutions that go beyond Federal laws.


1. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 didn't include sex as one of the protected classes for Public Accommodation.

2. That is true, this is where "sex" is included.



>>>>
 
Last edited:
I think I'm confused about how all of this got into a discussion about SSM. I just realized I'm not in the thread I thought I was in, which is the one about the bakers and the wedding cake.
Lol, I'm with you there. I had only intended to small clarification on how the law works.
 
The issues you raise can be addressed in the Congress and the White House without hand-holding from the Supreme Court.

Seriously? They cant get anything done. I'm being serious. They cannot DO anything and it would be a ridiculous partisan stalemate.

They have national security issues to deal with right now....let the highest court decide.

(I'm not being critical of you, I'm being critical of the system)
 
I think I'm confused about how all of this got into a discussion about SSM. I just realized I'm not in the thread I thought I was in, which is the one about the bakers and the wedding cake.

*sigh* Drunk again!

lol I know, all these threads seem to run together after awhile.
 
I think I'm confused about how all of this got into a discussion about SSM. I just realized I'm not in the thread I thought I was in, which is the one about the bakers and the wedding cake.

In all fairness, there are two entirely separate and unrelated stories about bakers who didn't want to make cakes for gay people. It's an oddly specific trend.
 
In all fairness, there are two entirely separate and unrelated stories about bakers who didn't want to make cakes for gay people. It's an oddly specific trend.

The constant cake discussion on here makes me crave cake.
 
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.

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?

"Put up signs" "Exclaim"

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

So World Watcher and I responded to your questions, and you got rather abstract (unclear references to a song). It seems that businesses could express their beliefs and still not refuse service and discriminate.

My main point, in case it was lost, was that this alone might solve the business's issues with having to serve the demographic that they object to. They should not be ashamed to do so, correct?
 
The constant cake discussion on here makes me crave cake.

Chocolate-cake-slice-crop1.jpg




I'll bring the cake you bring the ice cold milk to go with it.



:mrgreen:



>>>>
 
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)

So I am reposting this because (I didnt see an answer and) after all the discussion, I'm still unclear.

Not trying to muckrake, I'd just like to know. I think if business owner did so, they'd find their business burned to the ground but that is because that's my perception of the KKK. Not sure if that's accurate but I believe that's the undercurrent still, if not on the surface.

Edit: Taylor may just have alluded to it in post 202.
 
Stop that!!! Stop the madness!
 
>

sundae.png





Ice Cream anyone????




>>>>
 
Back
Top Bottom