[W:3596] Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage

[maquiscat]

49 states have criminal laws that prohibit sexual relations between the closely related. I was discussing the closely related getting married, NOT having sex.

Actually many states also include legal marriage in their incest laws. So you need to be specific, as I often have to be, when distinguishing what you are talking about. These laws also include relationships that are legal, but have no blood ties, such as by adoption or marriage (of others).

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[CLAX1911]

One is a marriage between two people of the same sex and the other is between two closely related people. Do you have a point or just stupid questions?

so if the different one can be illegal in the other one not and it doesn't violate any constitutional law.

Point of that question was to render your argument void. And you did.

 

[dixon01767]

so if the different one can be illegal in the other one not and it doesn't violate any constitutional law.

Point of that question was to render your argument void. And you did.

Has no bearing on my argument. EVERY single marriage is "different" than any other marriage. Blacks have "different" skin color than whites. Difference alone isnt justification for discrimination.

 

[CLAX1911]

Has no bearing on my argument. EVERY single marriage is "different" than any other marriage. Blacks have "different" skin color than whites. Difference alone isnt justification for discrimination.

If it's unconstitutional we discriminate against closely related people getting married take it to the Supreme Court. I wish you luck.

 

[Lisa]

49 states have criminal laws that prohibit sexual relations between the closely related. I was discussing the closely related getting married, NOT having sex.

It is assumed that if they get married they would have sex. The majority of people have sex before they are married.

 

[Lisa]

I believe this plays a role in it. one of the arguments against same-sex marriage is that it will be used to disparage businesses who refuse to serve same-sex weddings.

Does that also apply to black and interracial couples who got married and seek to buy a wedding cake from racist bakers? Why is it that people cannot separate their emotions from treating others as they are supposed to?

Jesus was very clear about this idea.
Luke 6:31 and Matthew 7:12, so it is very difficult for these bigots to claim that their actions are a religious belief when their own savior tells them to do otherwise. Jesus never condemned LGBT people. Matthew 19:12.

 

[CLAX1911]

Does that also apply to black and interracial couples who got married and seek to buy a wedding cake from racist bakers? Why is it that people cannot separate their emotions from treating others as they are supposed to?

As an argument against same sex marriage? I don't think so.

Jesus was very clear about this idea.
Luke 6:31 and Matthew 7:12, so it is very difficult for these bigots to claim that their actions are a religious belief when their own savior tells them to do otherwise. Jesus never condemned LGBT people. Matthew 19:12.

It isn't yours or anyone else's place to tell people what to believe.

 

[dixon01767]

It is assumed that if they get married they would have sex. The majority of people have sex before they are married.

Well that seems to be your assumption and if everyone is having sex without being married, it knocks down your theory that preventing them from marrying will prevent them from having sex.

 

[dixon01767]

Does that also apply to black and interracial couples who got married and seek to buy a wedding cake from racist bakers? Why is it that people cannot separate their emotions from treating others as they are supposed to?

Jesus was very clear about this idea.
Luke 6:31 and Matthew 7:12, so it is very difficult for these bigots to claim that their actions are a religious belief when their own savior tells them to do otherwise. Jesus never condemned LGBT people. Matthew 19:12.

Declining to bake a cake isnt a condemnation of the one seeking a cake.

 

[Lisa]

As an argument against same-sex marriage? I don't think so.

I am not arguing against SSM.

It isn't yours or anyone else's place to tell people what to believe.

It is if they are trying to legislate their bigotry and seeking to deny others as less than equal in a public business. they can do what they want in their private life but when they seek to legislate their discrimination then it becomes a public policy matter. the fact that they are obvious religious hypocrites also must be taught. Jesus never taught bigotry.

 

[Lisa]

Declining to bake a cake isn't a condemnation of the one seeking a cake.

It is blatant discrimination on the same level as "Whites-Only" businesses, whose owners also tried to claim a religious defense for their racism. This is why the 1964 Civil Rights Act has public accommodation protections to prevent this from happening.

The current bigots sought to discover a loophole for their bigotry because sexual orientation and gender identity are not mentioned, despite the fact that the law mentioned sex as a protected class, so many cities and states have passed LGBT civil rights protections to prohibit them from denying LGBT people equal service in a public business.

 

[CLAX1911]

I am not arguing against SSM.

Well, I understand that, but what I posted was part of the discussion regarding arguments against same sex marriage, interracial marriage and race in general doesn't have anything to do with it.

It is if they are trying to legislate their bigotry and seeking to deny others as less than equal in a public business. they can do what they want in their private life but when they seek to legislate their discrimination then it becomes a public policy matter. the fact that they are obvious religious hypocrites also must be taught. Jesus never taught bigotry.

I'm sorry, my statement was about private businesses, not public ones.

 

[CLAX1911]

Well that seems to be your assumption and if everyone is having sex without being married, it knocks down your theory that preventing them from marrying will prevent them from having sex.

Take your case to the supreme Court if it really is unconstitutional.

 

[dixon01767]

It is blatant discrimination on the same level as "Whites-Only" businesses, whose owners also tried to claim a religious defense for their racism.

Nonsense. Several of the sued bakers had previously supplied the homosecual plaintiffs with baked goods other than a wedding cake.

This is why the 1964 Civil Rights Act has public accommodation protections to prevent this from happening.

Which doesnt include sex, gender, sexual orientation, or long haired freaky people.

"And the sign said "Long-haired freaky people need not apply"
So I tucked my hair up under my hat and I went in to ask him why
He said "You look like a fine upstanding young man, I think you'll do"
So I took off my hat, I said "Imagine that. Huh! Me workin' for you!"
Whoa-oh-oh

Sign, sign, everywhere a sign
Blockin' out the scenery, breakin' my mind
Do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign?"

 

[Lisa]

Nonsense. Several of the sued bakers had previously supplied the homosexual plaintiffs with baked goods other than a wedding cake.

It is still not equal service in a public business. Many "Whites-Only" business would serve blacks, but not alongside with whites or indoors. Rosa Parks could ride the bus but only at the back.

Which doesn't include sex, gender, sexual orientation, or long-haired freaky people.

Sex/gender, race, color, creed/religion, and disability are already protected classes. Sexual orientation and gender identity are not currently protected classes. This idea would add them to the current protected classes.
Long-haired freaky people are not a class, despite Tesla and The Five Man Electic Band.

 

[Lisa]

Well, I understand that, but what I posted was part of the discussion regarding arguments against same-sex marriage, interracial marriage and race, in general, doesn't have anything to do with it.





I'm sorry, my statement was about private businesses, not public ones.

A private business is a club and they can do as they want when they get to pick and choose who can be a member, but they lose the business of people walking in off the street. Is their homophobic bigotry worth the loss of profitability?

 

[CLAX1911]

A private business is a club

No it's a business held by a non government proprietor. Which has few share holders and does not trade stock.

Privately held company - Wikipedia

and they can do as they want when they get to pick and choose who can be a member, but they lose the business of people walking in off the street.

That's incorrect, you don't lose the ability to serve the public if you aren't a government run business or a publicly traded business.

Is their homophobic bigotry worth the loss of profitability?

That's for them to decide it's a privately owned business.

 

[Lisa]

No it's a business held by a non government proprietor. Which has few share holders and does not trade stock.

Privately held company - Wikipedia
T

That's incorrect, you don't lose the ability to serve the public if you aren't a government-run business or a publicly traded business.
That's for them to decide it's a privately owned business.

You are trying to argue ownership and business law where it doesn't apply in civil rights. That is not how the public accomdation laws are to be applied. A public business is defined is any business that serves the general public. A private business is a club or other business that you have to be a member to enter. The public or private ownership of the business is irrelevant to the public accommodation protections and how they apply.

Government-owned/operated facilities and services

Government-owned facilities include courthouses, jails, hospitals, parks, and other places owned and operated by federal, state and local government. Government-operated services, programs, or activities provided by federal, state, or local governments include transportation systems and government benefits programs (such as welfare assistance).

Privately-owned/operated businesses and buildings

Privately-owned businesses and facilities that offer certain goods or services to the public - including food, lodging, gasoline, and entertainment -are considered public accommodations for purposes of federal and state anti-discrimination laws. For purposes of disability discrimination, the definition of a "public accommodation" is even more broad, encompassing most businesses that are open to the public (regardless of type).

Discrimination in Public Accommodations - FindLaw

 

[CLAX1911]

You are trying to argue ownership and business law where it doesn't apply in civil rights.

No not at all I'm trying to argue that private businesses can and do serve the public.

That is not how the public accomdation laws are to be applied. A public business is defined is any business that serves the general public.

No it's not. It's defined as one which is operated by the government or is publicly traded, in the stock market.

A private business is a club or other business that you have to be a member to enter.

No it isn't. It is a business held by a small number of investors, a sole proprietorship, it a business that isn't held by the government or publicly traded.

The public or private ownership of the business is irrelevant to the public accommodation protections and how they apply.

I don't think there is a public accommodation law that requires Baker's to make something for anybody no matter what.

Discrimination in Public Accommodations - FindLaw

Again the bakery didn't say it wouldn't serve gay people just that they wouldn't make a specific thing for a specific ceremony.

That is within their rights. Public accommodation law no matter what incarnation doesn't apply.

 

[Rich2018]

if they're making a cake and this cake says something you were compelling them to say something. So this is false...

No it's not - not if they're in the business of writing messages on cakes

You are wrong

...why would you want to be served by someone who hates you?

Irrelevant

Maybe they're the only cake bakers in town.

Would you tell a black man that he shouldn't enter a school where they hate him?

...that's hardly comparable. We aren't talking about discriminating against demographic. Just discriminating against a particular ceremony.

Gay people are a demographic

Would you support a baker who refused to serve a black man because he thinks blacks are sub-human and shouldn't be married?

...you're contradicting yourself if and $80,000 car in a $4,000 car are unequal by definition. And if you can afford one but not the other you are not equal to someone who can both...

No you're not equal in spending power.

You can't tell someone not to make the most money. You spend your time where it's most profitable. Surely even you understand this?

...health and safety compliance is to prevent foodborne pathogens. What foodborne pathogens will you get if a certain Baker doesn't make your wedding cake?

What???

Yes OK a baker is meant to serve consumable food. Not sure what your point is.

...I believe bars can refuse to serve anyone they want for any reason they want...

And you'd be wrong

...so let me get this straight correct me if I'm wrong opening a bakery is signing a four-year contract with the United States government?

Nope, despite your inability to discern an argument, But both require obligations.

...I don't believe in punishing thought crimes so if there's a few idiots out there that think One race is inferior or Superior to another I could care less. I don't want to see the psychic police force running around busting people for wrong think.

A few racist is the price you pay for having liberty

No but when they put thoughts into practice, we seem to differ.

 

[Rich2018]

No Religious augment is good either. First amendment being what it is.

We can agree on that at least.

There are no good arguments for gay marriage.


Religious arguments being rightly dismissed.

 

[Rich2018]

Declining to bake a cake isnt a condemnation of the one seeking a cake.

Declining to serve a black man is not to condemn the black man from wanting to be served.

It is however illegal.

 

[CLAX1911]

No it's not - not if they're in the business of writing messages on cakes

You are wrong

show me that I'm wrong.

Irrelevant

Maybe they're the only cake bakers in town.

Would you tell a black man that he shouldn't enter a school where they hate him?

schools belong to the public not to an individual so if there's someone there that hates children they should be fired.

Gay people are a demographic

Would you support a baker who refused to serve a black man because he thinks blacks are sub-human and shouldn't be married?

I don't support any bakeries that have any prejudices whatsoever.

No you're not equal in spending power.

so there's an inequality and business thank you for proving my point.

You can't tell someone not to make the most money. You spend your time where it's most profitable. Surely even you understand this?

further underscoring inequality. Most profitable is mutually exclusive to most equitable.

What???

Yes OK a baker is meant to serve consumable food. Not sure what your point is.

requiring them to meet safety standards that's to do with safety.

And you'd be wrong

I sure hope you've got more to back up your claim then just insistence otherwise.

Nope, despite your inability to discern an argument, But both require obligations.

No they don't. If you don't abide by health and safety for example you're not going to get arrested.

No but when they put thoughts into practice, we seem to differ.

There's already laws against putting those thoughts into practice some of them date back to long before this country ever existed.

 

[CLAX1911]

We can agree on that at least.

There are no good arguments for gay marriage.


Religious arguments being rightly dismissed.

I think there's a good argument for gay marriage. It's the same argument for marriage. It encourages people to form family structures. Which are inarguably beneficial to society.

 

[Rich2018]

I think there's a good argument for gay marriage. It's the same argument for marriage. It encourages people to form family structures. Which are inarguably beneficial to society.

I agree.