• 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!

Arkansas Judge Strikes Down State's Gay Marriage Ban

ernst barkmann said:
i only to break it down as close as i can come to my question......

does the ability/right to engage in a SSM...... also have the ability to force another person... business...to perform a ceremony for the SSM couple?
Click to expand...

dose hetero sexual marriage covey that right if not then the answer is no
 
blarg said:
we have had legal marriage in this country for a while now its clear that institution doesn't get to force any 1 not working for the state to marry some 1
Click to expand...

you give in a fools Paradise....

government forces people to do things all the time.

i deal in constitutional law....which deals in natural rights and privileges.......i dont care what common or civil laws says......because they never override constitutional law.
 
Last edited:
blarg said:
dose hetero sexual marriage covey that right if not then the answer is no
Click to expand...

no entity has the authority to force another person/business to do things against their will, UNLESS they have committed a crime, or threaten the health and safety of the public...that is constitutional law..

my argument is not about the type of marriage, but about government force being applied to citizens and business.
 
Last edited:
blarg said:
we have had legal marriage in this country for a while now its clear that institution doesn't get to force any 1 not working for the state to marry some 1
Click to expand...

your missing something.... i am not saying you don't have a legal rights...IE civil right /privilege....which are dispensed by government.

but government cannot give you a legal right...IE civil right /privilege on a citizens property...... ..............just like a citizen cannot give you a privilege on government property.............only the owner can give you a privilege on his property.

government dispenses privileges, and they honor privileges........people and business don't.

the 14th amendment is know as the civil rights amendment......what does it talk about?...privileges and immunities, and it states CLEARLY.....government will not discriminate.

CONSTITUTIONS....do not apply to people.............people cannot violate constitutional law.
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
your missing something.... i am not saying you don't have a legal rights...IE civil right /privilege....which are dispensed by government.

but government cannot give you a legal right...IE civil right /privilege on a citizens property...... ..............just like a citizen cannot give you a privilege on government property.............only the owner can give you a privilege on his property.

government dispenses privileges, and they honor privileges........people and business don't.

the 14th amendment is know as the civil rights amendment......what does it talk about?...privileges and immunities, and it states CLEARLY.....government will not discriminate.

CONSTITUTIONS....do not apply to people.............people cannot violate constitutional law.
Click to expand...

You still have not answered the question. Do we live in a Common Law country or a Civil Law country?
 
smb said:
You still have not answered the question. Do we live in a Common Law country or a Civil Law country?
Click to expand...

do you understand, that constitutional law is supreme?

therefore no common law or civil matters to constitutional law.

the federal government cannot makes laws overriding the constitution.

so why are you giving me laws, which have no power to constitutional law?
 
an example of what is .......equality under the law ....

Hillery Clinton and i meet in in one of the 50 states, we get into an argument and Hillery slaps me, that is an assault by her on me.....she has broken the law in the state.......she must answer for her action by adhering to the states law.

Hillery Clinton and i meet in in one of the 50 states, we get into an argument and i slap her, that is an assault by me on her.....i have broken the law in the state.......i must answer for my action by adhering to the states law.




an example of a violation of equality under the law.



Hillery Clinton and i meet in in one of the 50 states, we get into an argument and Hillery slaps me, that is an assault by her on me.....she has broken the law in the state.......she must answer for her action by adhering to the states law.

Hillery Clinton and i meet in in one of the 50 states, we get into an argument and i slap her, that is an assault by me on her.....i have broken the law in the state......however the federal government also states i have broken federal law, because she once was a member of the federal government, .... the federal government applies federal law to me instead of state.

all laws must apply to everyone equally...government cannot make laws for some people and not others.

equality under the law applies to governments................not people, ................people do not make the laws which could be unequal......governments do.
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
you give in a fools Paradise....

government forces people to do things all the time.

i deal in constitutional law....which deals in natural rights and privileges.......i dont care what common or civil laws says......because they never override constitutional law.
Click to expand...

ok but dose marriage let hetero sexual couples' force people to perform marriage ceremony's for them if you actually care about peel being forced to do things you should be worried about that

if so then yes gay couples cod do the same thing if not theirs no basis to give gay couples that power
 
ernst barkmann said:
your missing something.... i am not saying you don't have a legal rights...IE civil right /privilege....which are dispensed by government.

but government cannot give you a legal right...IE civil right /privilege on a citizens property...... ..............just like a citizen cannot give you a privilege on government property.............only the owner can give you a privilege on his property.

government dispenses privileges, and they honor privileges........people and business don't.

the 14th amendment is know as the civil rights amendment......what does it talk about?...privileges and immunities, and it states CLEARLY.....government will not discriminate.

CONSTITUTIONS....do not apply to people.............people cannot violate constitutional law.
Click to expand...

you seem to be missing a point yourself gay marriage doesn't crate a new situation the question is can any 2 people force some one to perform a marge ceremony for them
 
blarg said:
ok but dose marriage let hetero sexual couples' force people to perform marriage ceremony's for them if you actually care about peel being forced to do things you should be worried about that

if so then yes gay couples cod do the same thing if not theirs no basis to give gay couples that power
Click to expand...

i have stated the position, their is no authority anywhere to force anyone, to do things against their will if they have committed no crime or endangered heath or safety, ..people have liberty to make decisions in their life's based on what they want to do.

commerce is based on a free exchange, not a coerced exchange.......feelings , emotions do not enter not the picture.
 
blarg said:
you seem to be missing a point yourself gay marriage doesn't crate a new situation the question is can any 2 people force some one to perform a marge ceremony for them
Click to expand...


look at the law.....


Frequently Asked Questions about Minnesota's New Same-Sex Marriage Law

On May 14, 2013 Governor Mark Dayton signed into law a bill legalizing same-sex marriages in Minnesota. The Minnesota Department of Human Rights answers your questions regarding the rights of couples wishing to get married when the new law goes into effect on August 1, 2013.


Are religious organizations required to marry individuals of the same-sex?

No. The legislature sought to ensure this new legislation would not unconstitutionally infringe upon the rights of religious entities. Therefore, religious entities can, consistent with their theological doctrine, policy and teachings, perform same-sex marriages. However, the new law does not compel legal religious entities to perform same-sex marriages.


Are other organizations exempt from the law?

No. The law does not exempt individuals, businesses, nonprofits, or the secular business activities of religious entities from non-discrimination laws based on religious beliefs regarding same-sex marriage. Therefore, a business that provides wedding services such as cake decorating, wedding planning or catering services may not deny services to a same-sex couple who is planning a wedding based on their sexual orientation. To do so would violate protections for sexual orientation laid out in the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The individuals denied services could file a claim with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights against the entity that discriminated against them.

this law says by force two people wanting to get married can take action against the bold listed institutions above.
 
ernst barkmann said:
i have stated the position, their is no authority anywhere to force anyone, to do things against their will if they have committed no crime or endangered heath or safety, ..people have liberty to make decisions in their life's based on what they want to do.

commerce is based on a free exchange, not a coerced exchange.......feelings , emotions do not enter not the picture.
Click to expand...

then gay marriage is no problem
 
ernst barkmann said:
look at the law.....


Frequently Asked Questions about Minnesota's New Same-Sex Marriage Law

On May 14, 2013 Governor Mark Dayton signed into law a bill legalizing same-sex marriages in Minnesota. The Minnesota Department of Human Rights answers your questions regarding the rights of couples wishing to get married when the new law goes into effect on August 1, 2013.


Are religious organizations required to marry individuals of the same-sex?

No. The legislature sought to ensure this new legislation would not unconstitutionally infringe upon the rights of religious entities. Therefore, religious entities can, consistent with their theological doctrine, policy and teachings, perform same-sex marriages. However, the new law does not compel legal religious entities to perform same-sex marriages.


Are other organizations exempt from the law?

No. The law does not exempt individuals, businesses, nonprofits, or the secular business activities of religious entities from non-discrimination laws based on religious beliefs regarding same-sex marriage. Therefore, a business that provides wedding services such as cake decorating, wedding planning or catering services may not deny services to a same-sex couple who is planning a wedding based on their sexual orientation. To do so would violate protections for sexual orientation laid out in the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The individuals denied services could file a claim with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights against the entity that discriminated against them.

this law says by force two people wanting to get married can take action against the bold listed institutions above.
Click to expand...

just like hetero sexual couples can so no change and that doesn't include people actually performing a ceremony no one has to actually marry a couple gay or not
 
blarg said:
just like hetero sexual couples can so no change and that doesn't include people actually performing a ceremony no one has to actually marry a couple gay or not
Click to expand...

my position is about force.....if two people man and a woman wanted to marry and someone did not want to marry them, and tired to use law to force on them too...its still wrong....


WHY?....do people think they are in the RIGHT,.....when trying to force other people to do things against their will?
 
ernst barkmann said:
my position is about force.....if two people man and a woman wanted to marry and someone did not want to marry them, and tired to use law to force on them too...its still wrong....


WHY?....do people think they are in the RIGHT,.....when trying to force other people to do things against their will?
Click to expand...

its still not legal to force any 1 to marry you if your gay or not that's the answer to your original question on this thread

not for a business private person or a religion any way
 
blarg said:
its still not legal to force any 1 to marry you if your gay or not that's the answer to your original question on this thread

not for a business private person or a religion any way
Click to expand...

i posted the Minnesota law for you

this gives straight or gay couples power to take legal action against a business or person who will not marry them.

look at what dept of government is being used.....The Minnesota Department of Human Rights

NOW WHAT IS A HUMAN RIGHT?

it is a natural right?.........if it is ,you cannot use a natural right AGAINST a natural right......IE....right to marry [COUPLE] AGAINST......the right of association[ BUSINESS OWNER/ CITIZEN]


if it is a civil right/ privilege......government cannot give you a privilege on BUSINESS OWNER/ CITIZEN'S property, ..which violates his natural right.


civil rights/ privileges are given by governments...and government HONORS them.....meaning its legal and to have a government officials, marry people of either sex......not force non-government to marry people..[preform a service]
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
thats not even a good response....a pilot works for a company and must perform the duties and training required by the company he works for, if not he can be fired.
Click to expand...
That recurrent training is required by the FAA, not the employer, plenty of pilots are self-employed, and plenty of aviation company owners fly planes themselves. All must carry this expense. I ask again: is this not involuntary servitude? Requiring someone to spend their time and money on this training?

A business owner works for himself, in his own interest, as long as he is not committing a crime, or endangering the public thru health and safety government has no authority to apply force to him.
Click to expand...
Now you're quibbling over when involuntary servitude is acceptable and when it isn't.
 
Deuce said:
That recurrent training is required by the FAA, not the employer, plenty of pilots are self-employed, and plenty of aviation company owners fly planes themselves. All must carry this expense. I ask again: is this not involuntary servitude? Requiring someone to spend their time and money on this training?


Now you're quibbling over when involuntary servitude is acceptable and when it isn't.
Click to expand...


involuntary servitude is when you are forced to perform an action against your will, when you have not been convicted of committed a crime /threaten the public's health or safety.

discrimination is not a crime......it does not fall under criminal law....therefore it is unlawful to apply force to people to make them do things....when they have committed no criminal action.....this is constitutional law.
 
ernst barkmann said:
involuntary servitude is when you are forced to perform an action against your will, when you have not been convicted of committed a crime /threaten the public's health or safety.

discrimination is not a crime......it does not fall under criminal law....therefore it is unlawful to apply force to people to make them do things....when they have committed no criminal action.....this is constitutional law.
Click to expand...

You are wrongly trying to apply involuntary servitude to a situation where it isn't.

In the case described, the person would be still compensated in the same way, doing the same job, if not for some personal problem with something about the type of person the other is and when that characteristic is protected by law.

Legally, enforcement of anti-discrimination laws is not involuntary servitude. Just as forcing a business to comply with other laws, such as health laws or occupational safety laws, which may require additional work for the person that they may rather not do is not involuntary servitude.

If you want to prove otherwise, show where a court in the US has determined that it is involuntary servitude to be forced not to discriminate in the job you do anyway.

Involuntary Servitude legal definition of Involuntary Servitude. Involuntary Servitude synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Plus, since the remedy for failing to perform a service for someone in violation of anti-discrimination laws is monetary, then it isn't involuntary servitude. They can opt to pay the person instead (or simply be smart enough to know how to get around the laws, which really aren't that hard).
 
roguenuke said:
You are wrongly trying to apply involuntary servitude to a situation where it isn't.

In the case described, the person would be still compensated in the same way, doing the same job, if not for some personal problem with something about the type of person the other is and when that characteristic is protected by law.

Legally, enforcement of anti-discrimination laws is not involuntary servitude. Just as forcing a business to comply with other laws, such as health laws or occupational safety laws, which may require additional work for the person that they may rather not do is not involuntary servitude.

If you want to prove otherwise, show where a court in the US has determined that it is involuntary servitude to be forced not to discriminate in the job you do anyway.

Involuntary Servitude legal definition of Involuntary Servitude. Involuntary Servitude synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Plus, since the remedy for failing to perform a service for someone in violation of anti-discrimination laws is monetary, then it isn't involuntary servitude. They can opt to pay the person instead (or simply be smart enough to know how to get around the laws, which really aren't that hard).
Click to expand...

a basic question....were does government get authority to force a citizen[a] to preform an action for another citizens.....when citiznen [a]...has not committed a rights violation.

governments single reason it is instituted is to secure rights........since no rights violation has taken placed, what is being secured here?


Involuntary servitude is a United States legal and constitutional term for a person laboring against that person's will to benefit another, under some form of coercion other than the worker's financial needs. While laboring to benefit another occurs also in the condition of slavery, involuntary servitude does not necessarily connote the complete lack of freedom experienced in chattel slavery; involuntary servitude may also refer to other forms of unfree labor. Involuntary servitude is not dependent upon compensation or its amount.

example..... if i enter you land, and destroy some of your property, say a building...a judge could order me to go out to you property and rebuild that structure......or he could have be work for you until, the debt to you for the crime is paid.

is a case of discrimination, i am not violating any rights of anyone.....i am simply do not want to associate with you, and i have that natural right to do so....government has no authority to force me, because i have not committed a crime [ rights violation]
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
a basic question....were does government get authority to force a citizen[a] to preform an action for another citizens.....when citiznen [a]...has not committed a rights violation.

governments single reason it is instituted is to secure rights........since no rights violation has taken placed, what is being secured here?
Click to expand...


General welfare clause. I realize that many don't agree with that being used, but we know that there is harm caused when businesses open to the public are allowed to discriminate based on certain characteristics of other people when interacting with those people. The only business the government is allowed to operate is the USPS. ALL other businesses are privately owned. But many of those businesses provide essential services/goods for the way we live today. Whether people like it or not, the majority of people are dependent on others for their wellbeing, and that means they must be able to actually get services/goods without being turned away based on criteria that is beyond their control.

It is balancing the needs and wellbeing of society and those living within with the right of others to choose who they associate with. (Your involuntary servitude argument is a huge overreach because it requires the person to be doing something that they wouldn't otherwise be doing due to some sort of punishment or government force.) They are agreeing to the laws of operating a business open to the public by obtaining a business license to operate a business open to the public. They are free to change how their business runs and only operate a private business that is not open to the public.
 
ernst barkmann said:
involuntary servitude is when you are forced to perform an action against your will, when you have not been convicted of committed a crime /threaten the public's health or safety.

discrimination is not a crime......it does not fall under criminal law....therefore it is unlawful to apply force to people to make them do things....when they have committed no criminal action.....this is constitutional law.
Click to expand...

Discrimination is against the law. Now you're drawing the line at civil infractions vs. criminal penalties? Man, this keeps getting better and better. So if they write a law that punishes discrimination with prison time, you're suddenly ok with it!?
 
Last edited:
roguenuke said:
You are wrongly trying to apply involuntary servitude to a situation where it isn't.

In the case described, the person would be still compensated in the same way, doing the same job, if not for some personal problem with something about the type of person the other is and when that characteristic is protected by law.

Legally, enforcement of anti-discrimination laws is not involuntary servitude. Just as forcing a business to comply with other laws, such as health laws or occupational safety laws, which may require additional work for the person that they may rather not do is not involuntary servitude.

If you want to prove otherwise, show where a court in the US has determined that it is involuntary servitude to be forced not to discriminate in the job you do anyway.

Involuntary Servitude legal definition of Involuntary Servitude. Involuntary Servitude synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

Plus, since the remedy for failing to perform a service for someone in violation of anti-discrimination laws is monetary, then it isn't involuntary servitude. They can opt to pay the person instead (or simply be smart enough to know how to get around the laws, which really aren't that hard).
Click to expand...

correct this is why thats another strawman that always fails
 
Deuce said:
Discrimination is against the law. Now you're drawing the line at civil infractions vs. criminal penalties? Man, this keeps getting better and better. So if they write a law that punishes discrimination with prison time, you're suddenly ok with it!?
Click to expand...

do you not get is.......why is someone being forced to do something?

their actions, are not violating the rights of other people...........that is the whole reason we have government

you argument is.......... someone is not going to do something ...YOU want done........therefore punish them........

its so amazing people want to rule over other people..........



your idea you follow is to make people equal by law.
 
Last edited:
roguenuke said:
General welfare clause. I realize that many don't agree with that being used, but we know that there is harm caused when businesses open to the public are allowed to discriminate based on certain characteristics of other people when interacting with those people. The only business the government is allowed to operate is the USPS. ALL other businesses are privately owned. But many of those businesses provide essential services/goods for the way we live today. Whether people like it or not, the majority of people are dependent on others for their wellbeing, and that means they must be able to actually get services/goods without being turned away based on criteria that is beyond their control.

It is balancing the needs and wellbeing of society and those living within with the right of others to choose who they associate with. (Your involuntary servitude argument is a huge overreach because it requires the person to be doing something that they wouldn't otherwise be doing due to some sort of punishment or government force.) They are agreeing to the laws of operating a business open to the public by obtaining a business license to operate a business open to the public. They are free to change how their business runs and only operate a private business that is not open to the public.
Click to expand...



welfare and common defense!.


The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises,

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.




DUTY OF CONGRESS------------->To pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


your ideas of what society needs to do ,does not override constitutional law.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom