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

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



Message


MasterJaguar01 -> RE: SCOTUS rules gay marriage legal in all states! (6/30/2015 5:37:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

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.





It would be a shocker, if it were true.

But yes, applies to all businesses (i.e. "Public Accommodations") Right there in Title II




MasterJaguar01 -> RE: SCOTUS rules gay marriage legal in all states! (6/30/2015 5:42:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

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]



Actually, I was asking specifically about Title II. I should have been more clear.

A society without Title II is NOT a society in which I would want to live. I think we have all seen that movie, and it is pretty ugly.

Title II is really the crux of our discussion here. (Basically extending it to include sexual orientation). If you don't support Title II, then you are most likely not going to support an extension of it.

(I know I am stating the obvious)




Real0ne -> RE: SCOTUS rules gay marriage legal in all states! (6/30/2015 10:26:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

It would be a shocker, if it were true.

But yes, applies to all businesses (i.e. "Public Accommodations") Right there in Title II



Thanks for bringing that oversite to my attention.

However that really opens the flood gates.




quote:


TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION

SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.



Do you see how this is being applied unconstitutionally, and the vehicle used to accomplish that end?





mnottertail -> RE: SCOTUS rules gay marriage legal in all states! (6/30/2015 10:55:33 AM)

No, and dont see what it has to do with the SCOTUS ruling or gay marriage.




Real0ne -> RE: SCOTUS rules gay marriage legal in all states! (6/30/2015 11:21:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

No, and dont see what it has to do with the SCOTUS ruling or gay marriage.


normally questions are open ended and apply to anyone who wishes to argue the matter, however, no offense, under the circumstances this one is:

(in reply to MasterJaguar01)




mnottertail -> RE: SCOTUS rules gay marriage legal in all states! (6/30/2015 11:32:32 AM)

and I remain not bamboozled by your reply to him, consider it rhetorical, I was pointing out it was abaft the beam.




PeonForHer -> RE: SCOTUS rules gay marriage legal in all states! (6/30/2015 11:54:15 AM)

FR

I think the one, fundamental sticking point about the anti-gay-weddings, 'traditional Christian' point of view is that it's just not entirely plausibly cast in the language of 'freedom'. The arguments just don't hang together, for me. Male and female heterosexuals are still able to marry just as much as they ever did. 'Marriage' doesn't have to mean anything different *to them*. By extension it seems that there's a pretty inexorable logic that says that the usual laws that demand, for instance, that a shop proprietor not discriminate against this or that group in society, must do the same for gay people.

There's often 'a balance of freedoms' to consider. In this case, the perceived freedoms of 'traditional Christian wedding supporters' have been judged against the perceived freedoms of gays who want to marry. The latter have won and the former have lost because the lion's share of the freedom-arguments are in favour of those who support the gay weddings.




DesideriScuri -> RE: SCOTUS rules gay marriage legal in all states! (6/30/2015 3:20:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b
quote:

ORIGINAL: Me
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.


And, no one said anyone is demanding a totalitarian regimen of cake designs. I was demonstrating that falling back on the argument of it needing to be done "in accordance with the law,"can still be abusive to a businessperson's rights to run that business.

And, yes, I'm all for the Libertarian angle of letting the Market take care of such things.




Lucylastic -> RE: SCOTUS rules gay marriage legal in all states! (6/30/2015 3:24:14 PM)

there are lots of little abuses that can go on to any persons business.
my own bigotry is of my own making(were i to refuse certain customers who want to buy my products.)
no body elses.




DesideriScuri -> RE: SCOTUS rules gay marriage legal in all states! (6/30/2015 3:27:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
Actually, I was asking specifically about Title II. I should have been more clear.
A society without Title II is NOT a society in which I would want to live. I think we have all seen that movie, and it is pretty ugly.
Title II is really the crux of our discussion here. (Basically extending it to include sexual orientation). If you don't support Title II, then you are most likely not going to support an extension of it.
(I know I am stating the obvious)


I did address Title 2, and I don't believe, in this day and age, it's necessary any longer. The outcry a business would have to endure over discriminating would, likely, bury it, or, at the very least, exile it to a relatively small portion of potential customers. But, if that's what they want to do, I say they should be able to do it.

Look at the outcry when Chik-Fil-A's owners support of anti-LGBT movements. Granted, it didn't really hurt Chik-Fil-A, but Chik-Fil-A never discriminated against anyone, so it wasn't a big deal, at the local restaurant level.

Social Media and the internet allows for information to be spread at amazing speeds. Any business that discriminates is likely to feel heavy repercussions in short order through Market maneuvers alone.

The state of society right now isn't much like it was back in the early 1960's. We, as a people, are much more accepting of everyone.




Real0ne -> RE: SCOTUS rules gay marriage legal in all states! (7/1/2015 9:50:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

It would be a shocker, if it were true.

But yes, applies to all businesses (i.e. "Public Accommodations") Right there in Title II



Thanks for bringing that oversite to my attention.

However that really opens the flood gates.




quote:


TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION

SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.



Do you see how this is being applied unconstitutionally, and the vehicle used to accomplish that end?





anyway the major big black eye one is answered here: http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4821052











tweakabelle -> RE: SCOTUS rules gay marriage legal in all states! (7/2/2015 3:48:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01

A society without Title II is NOT a society in which I would want to live.

I did address Title 2, and I don't believe, in this day and age, it's necessary any longer. The outcry a business would have to endure over discriminating would, likely, bury it, or, at the very least, exile it to a relatively small portion of potential customers. But, if that's what they want to do, I say they should be able to do it.

Look at the outcry when Chik-Fil-A's owners support of anti-LGBT movements. Granted, it didn't really hurt Chik-Fil-A, but Chik-Fil-A never discriminated against anyone, so it wasn't a big deal, at the local restaurant level.

Social Media and the internet allows for information to be spread at amazing speeds. Any business that discriminates is likely to feel heavy repercussions in short order through Market maneuvers alone.

The state of society right now isn't much like it was back in the early 1960's. We, as a people, are much more accepting of everyone.


Title II seems to me to be the critical part of the legislation. To remove this section would be to effectively de-fang the legislation, to remove the power to punish. Ideally I would like to be in a position where we could remove this section without detriment. That situation would be a society where everyone has ceased to discriminate against queers and other minorities. In such a situation, Title II-type legislation would be superfluous redundant.

While society today is a lot more tolerant of diversity than in previous generations, there is still a long way to go, as the threads here on marriage equality demonstrate compelingly. I don't know of any group protected by anti-Discrimination legislation that feels the situation is so much better, and their position so much more secure, that they don't need the legislative protection any more. Either in Australia or the US, or the UK for that matter.

Things are getting better and a lot of that improvement can be directly attributed to anti-discimination legislation and its effects. The evidence suggests that the current regimes are contributing to solving the problem. But the problem is far from solved, so we need to retain the current regime until it achieves its goal. If it ain't broke don't fix it




Lucylastic -> RE: SCOTUS rules gay marriage legal in all states! (7/2/2015 5:58:03 AM)

SALT LAKE CITY -- Episcopalians have voted to allow religious weddings for same-sex couples, just days after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.

The vote came Wednesday in Salt Lake City at the denomination's national assembly. The measure passed by an overwhelming margin in the House of Deputies, the voting body of clergy and lay people at the meeting. The day before, the House of Bishops had approved the resolution, 129-26 with five abstaining.

"Rapid changes in civil law concerning marriage in the United States, along with the responses received as part of the SCLM church-wide consultation process, indicate a need for equivalent proper liturgies in jurisdictions where same-sex marriage is legal," according to a statement on the church's website.

"Further, the SCLM consultation process indicated a pastoral need for equivalent marriage rites that could be used by any couple."

Prior to the vote, the Very Rev. Brian Baker of Sacramento said the church rule change was the result of a nearly four-decade long conversation that has been difficult and painful for many. Baker, chair of the committee that crafted the changes, said church members have not always been kind to one another but that the dynamic has changed in recent decades.


"We have learned to not only care for, but care about one other," Baker said. "That mutual care was present in the conversations we had. Some people disagreed, some people disagreed deeply, but we prayed and we listened and we came up with compromises that we believe make room and leave no one behind."

Baker said the denomination's House of Bishops prayed and debated the issue for five hours earlier this week before passing it on to the House of Deputies.

The new rule eliminates gender-specific language from church laws on marriage so that same-sex couples could have religious weddings. Instead of "husband" and "wife," for example, the new church law will refer to "the couple." Under the new rules, clergy can decline to perform the ceremonies.

In 2003, the New York-based denomination made history by electing its first openly gay bishop. Since then, many Episcopal dioceses have allowed their priests to perform civil same-sex weddings. Still, the church hadn't changed its laws on marriage.

The Episcopal Church, with nearly 1.9 million members, has included many of the Founding Fathers and presidents.

Among mainline Protestant groups, only the United Church of Christ and the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), both of which are smaller than the Episcopal Church, allow same-sex weddings in all their congregations.

The 3.8-million-member Evangelical Lutheran Church in America lets its congregations decide for themselves, and many of them host gay weddings.

The United Methodist Church, by far the largest mainline Protestant church with 12.8 million members, bars gay marriage, although many of its clergy have been officiating at same-sex weddings recently in protest.



The Episcopal Church is the U.S. wing of the Anglican Communion, an 80 million-member global fellowship of churches. Ties among Anglicans have been strained since Episcopalians in 2003 elected Bishop Gene Robinson, who lived openly with his male partner, to lead the Diocese of New Hampshire.

On the eve of the U.S. vote, Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, spiritual leader of the world's Anglicans, issued a statement expressing deep concern about the move to change the definition of marriage.

Robinson, now retired, said he is breathless about how quickly gay rights have gained acceptance since the days when he was getting death threats and forced to wear a bulletproof vest to his consecration 12 years ago.

"Conservative churches are hemorrhaging young people because young people today have gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender friends," Robinson said. "In increasing numbers, they do not want to belong to a church that condemns their friends that they know to be wonderful people."


Faith groups across the spectrum of belief, from the Episcopal Church to the Southern Baptists, have been losing members as more Americans say they identify with no particular religion. The Episcopal Church has shrunk 18 percent over the last decade, after more than a generation of steady decline.

After the Supreme Court ruling last week, many conservative churches, including the Southern Baptists and the Mormons, renewed their opposition to gay marriage.

The Episcopal Church has already made history during the convention, electing its first black presiding bishop. Bishop Michael Curry of North Carolina won in a landslide over the weekend.

Curry has allowed same-sex church weddings in North Carolina, and he said the Supreme Court "affirmed the authenticity of love" by legalizing gay marriage.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/episcopalian-church-votes-to-approve-same-sex-marriage/




DesideriScuri -> RE: SCOTUS rules gay marriage legal in all states! (7/2/2015 1:02:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01
A society without Title II is NOT a society in which I would want to live.

I did address Title 2, and I don't believe, in this day and age, it's necessary any longer. The outcry a business would have to endure over discriminating would, likely, bury it, or, at the very least, exile it to a relatively small portion of potential customers. But, if that's what they want to do, I say they should be able to do it.
Look at the outcry when Chik-Fil-A's owners support of anti-LGBT movements. Granted, it didn't really hurt Chik-Fil-A, but Chik-Fil-A never discriminated against anyone, so it wasn't a big deal, at the local restaurant level.
Social Media and the internet allows for information to be spread at amazing speeds. Any business that discriminates is likely to feel heavy repercussions in short order through Market maneuvers alone.
The state of society right now isn't much like it was back in the early 1960's. We, as a people, are much more accepting of everyone.

Title II seems to me to be the critical part of the legislation. To remove this section would be to effectively de-fang the legislation, to remove the power to punish. Ideally I would like to be in a position where we could remove this section without detriment. That situation would be a society where everyone has ceased to discriminate against queers and other minorities. In such a situation, Title II-type legislation would be superfluous redundant.


You have the right to be wrong, and hold your own opinions, Tweaks. Title II was, pretty much, the only section that didn't deal with government agencies, etc.

quote:

While society today is a lot more tolerant of diversity than in previous generations, there is still a long way to go, as the threads here on marriage equality demonstrate compelingly. I don't know of any group protected by anti-Discrimination legislation that feels the situation is so much better, and their position so much more secure, that they don't need the legislative protection any more. Either in Australia or the US, or the UK for that matter.
Things are getting better and a lot of that improvement can be directly attributed to anti-discimination legislation and its effects. The evidence suggests that the current regimes are contributing to solving the problem. But the problem is far from solved, so we need to retain the current regime until it achieves its goal. If it ain't broke don't fix it


Yes, society has come a long way. Yes, we are not there yet. Yes, anti-discrimination legislation helped. But, since society has changed, the legislation needed can also change. I'm all for less regulation, fewer laws, etc. I don't believe the need for Title II is still necessary.

Read a great quote from James Madison today. Here's a pic:

[image]http://thefederalistpapers.integratedmarket.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Voluminous-Laws.jpg[/image]

While, it seems, he was talking more about individual legislation (ie. The Patriot Act was 342 pages long), than all laws, though, the sheer number of laws makes it extremely difficult to know, for sure, if you're not breaking any. Then, we add to that the laws that are no longer enforced, until they are, and it's not pretty.




mnottertail -> RE: SCOTUS rules gay marriage legal in all states! (7/2/2015 2:19:37 PM)

So, you think that black folk will have it equal should we take out title II for example? Is that anything other than an emotional hysterical thing, or you have credible evidence?




Page: <<   < prev  8 9 10 11 [12]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875