RE: SCOTUS rules gay marriage legal in all states!

RE: SCOTUS rules gay marriage legal in all states! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tweakabelle -> RE: SCOTUS rules gay marriage legal in all states! (6/29/2015 1:59:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b quote: While it is an option, not decorating a cake to celebrate a gay wedding does not mean you can't decorate a cake for a heterosexual wedding. [sm=Groaner.gif] [sm=banghead.gif] (They just don't get it, they really just don't get it) It's more like ..... they don't want to get it. If they got it they would know they would have to choose between human rights equally for all and their disinclination to support human rights for queers. And they don't want to make this decision because there's really only viable answer ... human rights equally for all, not their preferred option. So all these elaborate fanciful hypotheticals are a device that enables them to maintain the delusion that they aren't discriminating and to make a feeble tenuous claim that they still support human rights. Cowardly.

DesideriScuri -> RE: SCOTUS rules gay marriage legal in all states! (6/29/2015 2:44:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 The principle is still the same. The baker isn't "celebrating" a gay wedding by selling them a cake. They're just selling the product that they sell; it shouldn't matter who's buying it or what they plan to do with it. If the product they are making is something they are religiously opposed to, then, yes, it does matter.

DesideriScuri -> RE: SCOTUS rules gay marriage legal in all states! (6/29/2015 2:49:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Marc2b No one can force you to perform a service that you don't offer. But if you do offer a service then you must offer it to everyone equally. It is about the people, not the cakes and steaks. What if you don't offer cakes celebrating gay marriage to anyone? Well, this has the look of a "cunning legal ploy" to it, and I am guessing the courts would have to decide. I believe that if you discriminate against "cakes for heterosexual marriage" and "cakes for gay marriage" then you're discriminating against gay people and you're breaking the law. Since you know that this is plainly a gambit in order to discriminate against gay people I am quite surprised that you'd entertain an attempt to subvert the intention of the law. I support homosexuals having the privilege of getting married. I have no problem with that. I also support the right of a business to run it's business according to the beliefs of the owners. I think it would be a bad idea for a bakery to not decorate a wedding cake for a homosexual marriage, but I believe it is their right to make that choice. I would say the same of a homosexual business owner not wanting to do business with heterosexuals: It's not a good idea, but he/she has the right to make that choice.

DesideriScuri -> RE: SCOTUS rules gay marriage legal in all states! (6/29/2015 2:51:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle It's more like ..... they don't want to get it. If they got it they would know they would have to choose between human rights equally for all and their disinclination to support human rights for queers. And they don't want to make this decision because there's really only viable answer ... human rights equally for all, not their preferred option. So all these elaborate fanciful hypotheticals are a device that enables them to maintain the delusion that they aren't discriminating and to make a feeble tenuous claim that they still support human rights. Cowardly. Actually, I don't believe marriage is a right at all. But, do go on spouting your "wisdom." [8\|]

tweakabelle -> RE: SCOTUS rules gay marriage legal in all states! (6/29/2015 3:00:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 The principle is still the same. The baker isn't "celebrating" a gay wedding by selling them a cake. They're just selling the product that they sell; it shouldn't matter who's buying it or what they plan to do with it. If the product they are making is something they are religiously opposed to, then, yes, it does matter. Then their choices are: 1. To accede to their customer's wishes in which case there is no problem; 2. To cease offering any services to the public that might, in their view, involve compromising their religious beliefs. Again there is no problem. 3. To break the law and take the consequences. Obviously a problem. They have choices and options available to them which do not involve trampling on others' rights. If they feel that their religious beliefs are being compromised, they need to review the services they offer and adjust them accordingly so that they don't feel obliged to do anything that they feel is immoral or illegal. If they choose not to do this, and then choose to continue offering goods and services to the public on a discriminatory basis then they have no cause for complaint if they are sued under anti-discrimination laws. As they live in a democracy, they always have the option of advocating changes to the law if they feel strongly about it.

DesideriScuri -> RE: SCOTUS rules gay marriage legal in all states! (6/29/2015 3:11:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 The principle is still the same. The baker isn't "celebrating" a gay wedding by selling them a cake. They're just selling the product that they sell; it shouldn't matter who's buying it or what they plan to do with it. If the product they are making is something they are religiously opposed to, then, yes, it does matter. Then their choices are: 1. To accede to their customer's wishes in which case there is no problem; 2. To cease offering any services to the public that might, in their view, involve compromising their religious beliefs. Again there is no problem. 3. To break the law and take the consequences. Obviously a problem. They have choices and options available to them which do not involve trampling on others' rights. If they feel that their religious beliefs are being compromised, they need to review the services they offer and adjust them accordingly so that they don't feel obliged to do anything that they feel is immoral. If they choose not to do this, and then choose to continue offering goods and services to the public on a discriminatory basis then they have no cause for complaint if they are sued under anti-discrimination laws. Homosexual wedding participants have choices, too, that don't involve trampling on other's rights.

tweakabelle -> RE: SCOTUS rules gay marriage legal in all states! (6/29/2015 3:28:23 AM)
I'm afraid that I am unable to see which of the supplier of goods and services rights is being trampled on. No one is interfering with their freedom to practice any religion they choose in law or as far as I can see, any other way. They are making this claim, but this claim has no basis in existing law. Their freedom to practice their religion cannot be "trampled on" by the baking of a cake or its decoration. Making and decorating a cake has no effect whatsoever on freedom of religion. What they have is a moral dilemma. They are the ones with the problem, not the customers. The onus is upon them to resolve that dilemma any lawful way they choose. By choosing to discriminate they have merely shifted the dilemma onto the customer, and at that point it becomes a legal issue because they chose to do it in a discriminatory fashion.

dcnovice -> RE: SCOTUS rules gay marriage legal in all states! (6/29/2015 7:13:57 AM)
FR A fun read: http://www.theguardian.com/science/brain-flapping/2015/jun/29/same-sex-marriage-ruin-civilisation-science?CMP=share_btn_fb

kdsub -> RE: SCOTUS rules gay marriage legal in all states! (6/29/2015 7:32:27 AM)
The author of that peace could be another victim of gay marriage… there is a very good chance he could bite his tongue off with it being in his cheek all the time… Oh the humanity!!! Welcome back DC!!!! Butch

Zonie63 -> RE: SCOTUS rules gay marriage legal in all states! (6/29/2015 8:13:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 The principle is still the same. The baker isn't "celebrating" a gay wedding by selling them a cake. They're just selling the product that they sell; it shouldn't matter who's buying it or what they plan to do with it. If the product they are making is something they are religiously opposed to, then, yes, it does matter. If their religion forbids them from baking cakes, then that would apply to everyone, gay or straight. If there was something different about the ingredients or the baking process, then there might be something to it, but we're talking about the exact same product! The only thing different is the sexual orientation of the customer, and in any other business, refusing to serve someone on that basis would be illegal. So, it is the same for bakeries.

crazyml -> RE: SCOTUS rules gay marriage legal in all states! (6/29/2015 11:48:26 AM)
Yes, I recognise that your point isn't "anti gay" but in favour of the state not imposing itself on other people. The libertarian argument (and I hope you don't mind my describing it that way) is the only argument I have seen that has any weight to it at all. I don't agree with it, but I do have sympathy with it. As a rule I favour less state intervention than most European liberals would, but I can see a justification for ani-discrimination laws. Can I ask you whether you would give businesses complete liberty to discriminate? For example, should a business that refuses to serve people of colour be allowed to do so? [Ed to remove a poorly chosen word]

DesideriScuri -> RE: SCOTUS rules gay marriage legal in all states! (6/29/2015 5:54:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle I'm afraid that I am unable to see which of the supplier of goods and services rights is being trampled on. No one is interfering with their freedom to practice any religion they choose in law or as far as I can see, any other way. They are making this claim, but this claim has no basis in existing law. Their freedom to practice their religion cannot be "trampled on" by the baking of a cake or its decoration. Making and decorating a cake has no effect whatsoever on freedom of religion. What they have is a moral dilemma. They are the ones with the problem, not the customers. The onus is upon them to resolve that dilemma any lawful way they choose. By choosing to discriminate they have merely shifted the dilemma onto the customer, and at that point it becomes a legal issue because they chose to do it in a discriminatory fashion. The freedom to decide how to run their business. The freedom to no be forced into supporting something that is against their religious beliefs. Wedding cakes are a big deal. They'd rather not run the risk of smearing their name by having one of their wedding cakes at a homosexual wedding.

DesideriScuri -> RE: SCOTUS rules gay marriage legal in all states! (6/29/2015 6:01:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml Yes, I recognise that your point isn't "anti gay" but in favour of the state not imposing itself on other people. The libertarian argument (and I hope you don't mind my describing it that way) is the only argument I have seen that has any weight to it at all. I don't agree with it, but I do have sympathy with it. I don't mind, as it describes it quite accurately. quote: As a rule I favour less state intervention than most European liberals would, but I can see a justification for ani-discrimination laws. Can I ask you whether you would give businesses complete liberty to discriminate? For example, should a business that refuses to serve people of colour be allowed to do so? [Ed to remove a poorly chosen word] Yes, I do think a business owner should be allowed to run their business as they choose. I also think it would be stupid for a business owner to do that, but let's let the Market make that determination. If a business decides it will not service an Asian, then that business should be allowed to do that. The amount of business they will lose from Asian customers (why reduce your potential customer base like that?!?) will probably be less than the business they lose from other customers who don't want to do business with a company that would do that. They'll go out of business because their customer base just isn't large enough, or they'll change their stance and not discriminate.

tweakabelle -> RE: SCOTUS rules gay marriage legal in all states! (6/29/2015 7:30:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle I'm afraid that I am unable to see which of the supplier of goods and services rights is being trampled on. No one is interfering with their freedom to practice any religion they choose in law or as far as I can see, any other way. They are making this claim, but this claim has no basis in existing law. Their freedom to practice their religion cannot be "trampled on" by the baking of a cake or its decoration. Making and decorating a cake has no effect whatsoever on freedom of religion. What they have is a moral dilemma. They are the ones with the problem, not the customers. The onus is upon them to resolve that dilemma any lawful way they choose. By choosing to discriminate they have merely shifted the dilemma onto the customer, and at that point it becomes a legal issue because they chose to do it in a discriminatory fashion. The freedom to decide how to run their business. The freedom to no be forced into supporting something that is against their religious beliefs. Wedding cakes are a big deal. They'd rather not run the risk of smearing their name by having one of their wedding cakes at a homosexual wedding. No one is telling them how to run their business, except that it must be done in accordance with the law. The second 'right' you assert has no basis in law. The statement that they would "rather not run the risk of smearing their name by having one of their wedding cakes at a homosexual wedding" reeks of prejudice. Precisely how is their name "smeared" by having a "cake of theirs at a gay wedding"? THe bakers are the ones with the problem. The onus is upon them to solve that problem lawfully and they declined to do so. In doing so, they broke the law knowingly. If they persist with this attitude, perhaps the best solution is for them to get out of the marriage cake industry, or else tailor their business activities so that they remain lawful. As things stand, they have no moral or legal right to behave the way they chose to behave. They must have known this and therefore willingly broke the law. In effect, you appear to be arguing that they should be able to make illegal choices without legal consequences

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: SCOTUS rules gay marriage legal in all states! (6/29/2015 9:31:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml Yes, I recognise that your point isn't "anti gay" but in favour of the state not imposing itself on other people. The libertarian argument (and I hope you don't mind my describing it that way) is the only argument I have seen that has any weight to it at all. I don't agree with it, but I do have sympathy with it. I don't mind, as it describes it quite accurately. quote: As a rule I favour less state intervention than most European liberals would, but I can see a justification for ani-discrimination laws. Can I ask you whether you would give businesses complete liberty to discriminate? For example, should a business that refuses to serve people of colour be allowed to do so? [Ed to remove a poorly chosen word] Yes, I do think a business owner should be allowed to run their business as they choose. I also think it would be stupid for a business owner to do that, but let's let the Market make that determination. If a business decides it will not service an Asian, then that business should be allowed to do that. The amount of business they will lose from Asian customers (why reduce your potential customer base like that?!?) will probably be less than the business they lose from other customers who don't want to do business with a company that would do that. They'll go out of business because their customer base just isn't large enough, or they'll change their stance and not discriminate. So you oppose the civil rights act? Which contains many regulations about how businesses should be run. You take the free market argument that Rand Paul takes? Let the free market handle it?

DesideriScuri -> RE: SCOTUS rules gay marriage legal in all states! (6/30/2015 1:27:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle No one is telling them how to run their business, except that it must be done in accordance with the law. Lemme stop you right there. If there was a law that mandated that every cake conformed to a set design, flavor, or size, no one would be telling them how to run their business "except that it must be done in accordance with the law."

DesideriScuri -> RE: SCOTUS rules gay marriage legal in all states! (6/30/2015 1:47:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 quote: quote: As a rule I favour less state intervention than most European liberals would, but I can see a justification for ani-discrimination laws. Can I ask you whether you would give businesses complete liberty to discriminate? For example, should a business that refuses to serve people of colour be allowed to do so? [Ed to remove a poorly chosen word] Yes, I do think a business owner should be allowed to run their business as they choose. I also think it would be stupid for a business owner to do that, but let's let the Market make that determination. If a business decides it will not service an Asian, then that business should be allowed to do that. The amount of business they will lose from Asian customers (why reduce your potential customer base like that?!?) will probably be less than the business they lose from other customers who don't want to do business with a company that would do that. They'll go out of business because their customer base just isn't large enough, or they'll change their stance and not discriminate. So you oppose the civil rights act? Which contains many regulations about how businesses should be run. You take the free market argument that Rand Paul takes? Let the free market handle it? I don't know Rand's precise stance on the CRA, so I won't say I agree with his stance. The CRA was necessary, back then. Society has changed quite a bit since then; not enough, but we've come quite a long way. There are things in the CRA that are no longer necessary, imo. All Title descriptions grabbed from the Wiki. Title 1: No longer needed as the Voter Rights Act of 1965 supercedes it (and takes a stricter stance than the CRA). Title 2: I think this one could be lifted, which would be in accordance to my response to crazyml's question. Title 3: This one should stay in place as it's not really something the Market is designed to address. It's true that voters install those that control it, but I'd leave it in place. Title 4: I'd rather see a voucher system used for public schools. Active desegregation, imo, should be prohibited. Title 5: Keep it. Title 6: Same as for Title 3. Title 7: Keep it. Title 8: Keep it. Title 9: Not sure if this needed anymore. I certainly hope it isn't. Title 10: Keep it. Title 11: This one is interesting. I don't see how it's necessary, but if it is, keep it. I know that doesn't pigeonhole me, but I'm much to big to fit in a pigeonhole. [:D]

Real0ne -> RE: SCOTUS rules gay marriage legal in all states! (6/30/2015 2:19:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml Yes, I recognise that your point isn't "anti gay" but in favour of the state not imposing itself on other people. The libertarian argument (and I hope you don't mind my describing it that way) is the only argument I have seen that has any weight to it at all. I don't agree with it, but I do have sympathy with it. I don't mind, as it describes it quite accurately. quote: As a rule I favour less state intervention than most European liberals would, but I can see a justification for ani-discrimination laws. Can I ask you whether you would give businesses complete liberty to discriminate? For example, should a business that refuses to serve people of colour be allowed to do so? [Ed to remove a poorly chosen word] Yes, I do think a business owner should be allowed to run their business as they choose. I also think it would be stupid for a business owner to do that, but let's let the Market make that determination. If a business decides it will not service an Asian, then that business should be allowed to do that. The amount of business they will lose from Asian customers (why reduce your potential customer base like that?!?) will probably be less than the business they lose from other customers who don't want to do business with a company that would do that. They'll go out of business because their customer base just isn't large enough, or they'll change their stance and not discriminate. So you oppose the civil rights act? Which contains many regulations about how businesses should be run. You take the free market argument that Rand Paul takes? Let the free market handle it? Nope, not businesses 'et al'. Only applies to the government or entities receiving funds from the government. Shocker huh? Of course that wont stop a court from applying it to you if you fail to recognize and raise that little factoid at trial. People argue the constitution and these acts like they are corporate government employees with the assumption it applies to everyone. Its does not, not even close.

Marc2b -> RE: SCOTUS rules gay marriage legal in all states! (6/30/2015 4:15:46 AM)
quote: It's more like ..... they don't want to get it. If they got it they would know they would have to choose between human rights equally for all and their disinclination to support human rights for queers. And they don't want to make this decision because there's really only viable answer ... human rights equally for all, not their preferred option. So all these elaborate fanciful hypotheticals are a device that enables them to maintain the delusion that they aren't discriminating and to make a feeble tenuous claim that they still support human rights. Cowardly. Yeah . . . I know . . . it's just that, after banging into that wall so many times . . . you just can't help but wonder.

Marc2b -> RE: SCOTUS rules gay marriage legal in all states! (6/30/2015 5:00:30 AM)
quote: Lemme stop you right there. If there was a law that mandated that every cake conformed to a set design, flavor, or size . . . Except that there isn't. You can make anything look bad by extrapolating it into absurdity. It is a form of strawman argument in that you are arguing against a position that your opponents on this matter do not hold. Nobody (seriously) is demanding a totalitarian regimen of cake designs. What we are saying is this: If you are in the business of selling cakes to the public, then you must treat your customers equally. If you do refuse service it had better be for a good reason. They were Black is not a good reason. They were Muslim is not a good reason. They were Gay is not a good reason. They were drunk and rowdy is a good reason. They wanted hate imagery and/or wording is a good reason. And yes, society can rightly conclude that such symbols as the nazi swastika, klan imagery (including the confederated flag) as well as isis symbols (by which I mean the Muslim hate group and not the nice goddess lady) qualify as hate. Please note: Nobody (seriously) is saying that these business can't make use of such imagery (though they might lose business as a result), just that they shouldn't be forced to. Sigh. I making a prediction right now. I hope I'm wrong.

Page: << < prev 8 9 10 [11] 12 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125