|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Author | Message | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Post subject: Posted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 1:58 pm 
mr pine wrote: I wasn't really confusing it.
How is taking pictures at a wedding a public accommodation? What about places that say "no shirt no shoes no service?" Or "we have the right to refuse service to anyone?" A couple notes: 1. Although I think the case mentioned is a mostly frivolous lawsuit, I do support the rights of individuals to fight against discrimination. If the photographer wanted to avoid getting sued, she could have just come up with an excuse ("I'm booked that weekend"). This happens all the time in the housing market. 2. As far as I know, the shirtless or shoeless are not protected classes under any Civil Rights laws in the United States. 3. Signs posted on restaurant walls do not circumvent federal law. Restaurants are certainly free to post signs, but that doesn't give them the right to deny service on the basis of race/gender/disability/sexual orientation/etc. 4. You are implying that rational discrimination legitimizes arbitrary discrimination. A bar has a rational basis for refusing service to a drunk or rowdy patron. A restaurant has a rational basis for refusing service due to the personal hygiene of a patron. The photography company did not have a rational basis for refusing service for a same sex wedding. _________________ EisleyForever wrote: you're A-list in my heart! MAKECOLDPLAYHISTORY |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 20 Feb 2005 | Posts: 8868 | Location: Saturn, the Bringer of Old Age
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
      |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 3:22 pm
You people are smart. I often get envious. Really. Even when I don't agree with some of you, I sometimes find myself enjoying the well-reasoned, thorough explanations. Sometimes I want to participate in these debates but my brain gets overwhelmed with the facts and reasoning. And it's easy to get overwhelmed with information. Why does everything have to be so complicated? That's why I like being a math teacher. Actually, convincing students that math is important is next to impossible. Simply doing the math is much easier... and certainly more fun. _________________ "If you're a ninja, every day is like friday." -Jamie M. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 28 Jan 2003 | Posts: 2857 | Location: Lake Jackson, TX
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
  |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 4:54 pm
DRMS_7888 wrote: 4. You are implying that rational discrimination legitimizes arbitrary discrimination. A bar has a rational basis for refusing service to a drunk or rowdy patron. A restaurant has a rational basis for refusing service due to the personal hygiene of a patron. The photography company did not have a rational basis for refusing service for a same sex wedding. You're thoughts I didn't quote resonated, and this is the only thing I took any issue with: Even if I think my faith is based on it serving some rational utilitarian function for humanity when practiced obediently, I am of the understanding that no faith needs to be rational in any shape or form, or explain their beliefs as such. Religious groups are a protected class here, and thus their beliefs are what's protected, and that's done by protecting those who practice those beliefs in whatever irrational way they choose, which included discriminating against those who don't share their faith. Scripture promotes accepting everyone in love, so long as they accept Christ, and if they reject Christ, it's best to distance yourself and move on to those receptive to the gospel. Right or wrong, that's the religious belief that's protected constitutionally. _________________ yup, that's my name. FOR YOUR RATING PLEASURE: 4 LIKE Buttons, 1 NEUTRAL, 1 VEXED, 5 DISLIKE buttons. LC > FB           
 = personal fave  = Eisley fans should dig it
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 09 Apr 2008 | Posts: 9641 | Location: Greater St. Louis Area
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 5:05 pm
rmlawrence wrote: Why does everything have to be so complicated? I think Avril Lavigne wrote a song feeling this way 
I can barely wrap my head around why people have a problem w/ gay marriage. It's not like anything is being taken away from anyone. It'd just be proving ..once more than America (can be) the land of the free. It sounds corny, but it's the simple truth ...we should be able to love whomever we want (not guys don't go thinking I mean someone should be allowed to love and marry their pet goat). It's tiresome how long we have to fight for rights that should seem just right from the start. But, civil rights and women rights did take quite some time and I think it's safe to say...we still have to fight a bit in those areas. That's about all I have to say. No fancy words or quotes, sorry haha. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 10 Feb 2007 | Posts: 2907 | Location: Maryland
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Fri Aug 13, 2010 6:19 pm
Lemme see if I can consolidate the latest postings: a group of people who are generally native-born compared to immigrants; personal philosophy confused with legal policy; comparing someone of typical white (and male) privelege to a group notoriously discriminated against; apologizing for the mistreatment of minorities by priveleged white society by a minority; an assumption that homosexuals are incapable of 'finding value' in marriage; comparing the desire to marry a consenting adult of the same sex to a practing Christian looking to join an idealogically opposing institution on the (baseless) basis of troublemaking; a hearty comparison of human beings to apparell; further confusion of personal philosophy with legal policy; a distinct inability to recognize the separation of church and state; and finally, a denial-like lack of realization concerning the fact that a desire for legal recognition does not equate to a desire for religious acceptance, as the two are separate issues. Can't even. _________________ Albert Camus wrote: Always go too far, because that's where you'll find the truth. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 04 May 2007 | Posts: 3862 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 12:03 am
Tip of the cap to taruh for summing it up quite nicely. I'll admit I'm a bigot when it comes to gay guys. I tend to see them as laughably stereotypical cartoons rather than just people. I totally did that recently with regard to the flight attendant who quit with a flamboyant flourish after he had had enough from a rude customer. As soon as I read the phrase "male flight attendant" I thought probably gay. When I saw a picture of him I thought, totally gay and at the thought of his criminal antics in uber queen mode.
What struck me as odd was not so much the story but the comments by readers to the story. Yes there were references to his sexual orientation, but they were in large part oblivious to that and were holding up this hysterical drama momma as "a hero". Maybe he tapped into the current worker zeitgeist, but I think its also emblematic of the idea that people are starting to see gays as people first rather than just gays. Hence, why you see polling data that has opposition to gay marriage receding over time. Its hard to deny people when you see them as people rather than as a group or agenda. Even though I may be a little behind the curve on the "seeing gays as people first" thing, I have never opposed gay marriage based on the notion of fairness. They shouldn't have to suffer any less than than straight people. Er ... I mean gays should be able to experience the bliss that is marriage. Like Kylee Janai I think gay marriage would be more fulfillment on the "land of the free" marketing. I believe its natural for gays to fight for equal rights, but my heart swells with human pride when other people (non-gays in this case) fight for the freedom of others. It makes be believe that simple human decency is divinely inspired rather than just a rational process. Perhaps more divinely inspired than words written thousands of years ago by men who would have just picked up a rock if asked about the gay marriage issue. _________________ 
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 | Posts: 995 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 2:06 am
WILL OF THE PEOPLE! SLAVERY REINSTATED! 
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 19 Aug 2007 | Posts: 1547 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 2:35 am
tahruh wrote: Lemme see if I can consolidate the latest postings: a group of people who are generally native-born compared to immigrants; personal philosophy confused with legal policy; comparing someone of typical white (and male) privelege to a group notoriously discriminated against; apologizing for the mistreatment of minorities by priveleged white society by a minority; an assumption that homosexuals are incapable of 'finding value' in marriage; comparing the desire to marry a consenting adult of the same sex to a practing Christian looking to join an idealogically opposing institution on the (baseless) basis of troublemaking; a hearty comparison of human beings to apparel; further confusion of personal philosophy with legal policy; a distinct inability to recognize the separation of church and state; and finally, a denial-like lack of realization concerning the fact that a desire for legal recognition does not equate to a desire for religious acceptance, as the two are separate issues.
Can't even. not compared to immigrants. I am suggesting that freedoms and equality are not the reality and "separate and hopefully equal" is the norm for people in out-groups and minorities. It's my belief that a person is delusional or in denial to accept the "Melting Pot" view has prevail and assimilation is the norm in America, and not pluralism. All other examples were just anecdotes to demonstrate that being Homosexual, or a minority, and facing discrimination is common, but prejudice is accepted across the board, with people generally living according to their preference in respect to where they do and don't go. No one's changed it, and of all the research sociologists have done, people group, and differentiate and discriminate in society everywhere, for as long as we've known. It's been litigated, and even with laws, it still happens, so is the issue making everyone accept one viewpoint legal &/ or socially, or obtaining rights and protections that are materially beneficial, regardless of label? Religious freedom in constitutional protected, thus behaviors and actions taken in regard to those religions are byproducts of that freedom. And in an honest admission, I've always been peeved at schism 1st amendment impose when put up against others. Like so many other philosophical ideals, it's based on the notion of sound judgment and decency being the norm. Immanuel Kant, that's all I'll say. No one has to be a "Troublemaker" to express their freedoms, but invoking the label of "Troublemaker" says a lot, cause that's what people label anyone who goes against the flow of the status quo, typically. But if that person holds their Personal Freedom as the epitome of their self actualization in life, their most sacred and protected right... well I'm sure they'll reject your label. Was the Atheist-Raise boyscout a "Troublemaker"? Should they have started their own club for young boys raised by Atheists? How about the Dad opposed to the Pledge of Allegiance who litigated it all the way to the supreme court? Should it have been made illegal to say the pledge at school, or should he have just told his kid to use that time to think and relax etc? Separation of Church and State prevents the mandating of a State Religion. It doesn't mean the government remains uninvolved and silent on matters of faith and their legal implications. IF so, there would be no grounds to enforce that part of the 1st amendment. Is anyone else bothered that Religion gets thrown under the bus in constitutional arguments, and ultimately, the foundations of ethical and moral law owe greatly to Religion, this nation in particular relying heavily on it? Where does the authority of any notion of morality come from? Are moral ideas and written law codes just our own ideas Alienated from us and given supremacy for the sake of argument? Biblical law got it's authority from on high, Civil law gets it authority from a state of order and civility being maintained and the punitive consequences when that falters. One you can rely on, the other may upend you. What good is a relative law, it's an imprecise measure to judge by? Anyways, people have always adapted their lives to suit their whims, that's why most major cities have neighborhoods that have been red-lined as Queer-friendly, where people of said persuasion can be "free". If there is to be gay marriage, then, by the same logic, if a couple of Frats and sororities decided to move their shenanigans to a local gay bar and hetero it up in mass, drowning out the vibe and norms of said bar, it would defeat the purpose of their creating a place for themselves. When that happened to the bars frequented by the locals at my college, they usually got sold, or closed down. People discriminate in all kinds of ways because people often value a sense of solidarity and comfort that can be really shallow and superficial. I am saying NO ONE CARES until it affects them and they are denied something they want, and sometimes what we want is a superficial attempt at validation that does little to change anything beyond appearances. I live and work in a place where, if you are white, when your kids about 13 if you haven't moved away, or put them in private school, you're a minority. Seriously. Even before then it's a struggle to keep the kids from self-segregating and reinforcing the same thing they experience when they go home to the re-integrated neighborhoods. So we try and build bridges, but don't rock the boat, because people have chosen their preference, or accepted their reality and made of it what the can. So yeah, I'm saying separate but equal exists, and flourishes in the america. Be it via de facto segregation, class stratification, or cultural pluralism. Is anyone going to file a lawsuit against J-Date for discrimination? (so many tasteless racist jokes could follow that )
So, I'm saying to this, what a friend mention about his marriage. "Do you want to be happy or do you want to be right?" If Civil Unions can get passage, do it. Then find a church that is willing to marry you if you want to be married, even if it's not a state sanctioned marriage. Cover both bases, and you don't have to deal with me and zealots like me. I am saying, let the state drop out of the nomenclature battle and give you legal protections if you are homosexual and want the privileges of marriage. It's a compromise, but so were Civil Rights, cause 43 years in, a lot of the corrective measures put in place are demonized, when they were instituted to correct 400 years of oppression. But I'm not whining about that, most African Americans I know just LIVE and try and make strides with the ground we've gained. They roll with the punches and celebrate the successes. For us, seeing the national climate turn to reject all the legal moves intended to "even the playing field" and end discrimination highlight the failure of the Law to change the hearts and minds of people. Equality under the law is an ideal that is undermined by the behavior of the people it governs. I am just saying, recognize that and work to make the best of it, like everyone else. Any indignation about this seems so misplaced when there are situations where people are living and dying based on our biases based on nationality, and gender based oppression, but the energy and passion to address it dissipates across longitude and latitude lines the further it gets from people's homes. ``````````````````````````````````````` Oh, and Oli, I say put it up to a vote, the truth sets us free after all. Enforcement of that policy would be interesting to say the least. Besides indentured servitude is back with a vengeance? I mean, as long as cash rules and slavery is colorblind... _________________ yup, that's my name. FOR YOUR RATING PLEASURE: 4 LIKE Buttons, 1 NEUTRAL, 1 VEXED, 5 DISLIKE buttons. LC > FB
= personal fave = Eisley fans should dig it
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 09 Apr 2008 | Posts: 9641 | Location: Greater St. Louis Area
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 3:05 am
So in other words - settle. Settle for separate but equal in the eyes of the law because people like gundamit will never fully embrace the gays in his heart and mind. Settle because biases against gays pale in comparison to other injustices. Settle because you already have it easier than those who can't simply push their differences into a closet. Settle because you're making us uncomfortable.
I say the gays take the easy legal victories over the next couple decades then work on hearts and minds that other groups have given up on. _________________
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 | Posts: 995 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 3:42 am
as long as there are checks and balances then everything is cool. gay people should have all the rights of other people. but their rights are not above the rights of non gays. and visa versa. and, if you look closely, minority groups (no matter if it is gays, females, Hispanics, etc) they do not want equal rights, they want preferential treatment. and that is wrong. and no one can argue that. the same goes for the judge who over turned the case. sure he has the right to. and good for him because the will of the people can be wrong sometimes. but what happens when a judge makes a bad choice and no one is there to check him? or a judge overturns a case that is right? _________________ Wil's excellent description of me. wilsmith wrote: You're the Anti-Censorship+Topless Twitpic Parodying+Youth Group Video Directing guy that's a champion for the 1st amendment, Videogames as Art, and unrepentant file sharing... Instagram - Facebook - Twitter - YouTube |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 09 Aug 2004 | Posts: 4836 | Location: illinois
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 7:53 am
Don't really care one way or the other, except to say that the judge's ruling was completely unconstitutional. There's nothing in the constitution guaranteeing the right to marry people of the same sex, or even to marry at all. It's completely a state's rights issue. That said, we should eliminate all federal marriage benefits in the first place (discrimination against single people), and then this wouldn't be an issue for anyone. _________________ EvilSpace |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 01 Mar 2005 | Posts: 2348 | Location: Plano, TX
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 9:24 am
JBaker wrote: Don't really care one way or the other, except to say that the judge's ruling was completely unconstitutional.
There's nothing in the constitution guaranteeing the right to marry people of the same sex, or even to marry at all. It's completely a state's rights issue. That said, we should eliminate all federal marriage benefits in the first place (discrimination against single people), and then this wouldn't be an issue for anyone. _________________
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 | Posts: 995 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Sat Aug 14, 2010 12:24 pm
JBaker FTW! and Gundamit your post before the last was what I was implying as far as a modus operandi for gay rights activists, even your ultimate conclusion was the endgame I had in mind as far as a strategy for them. Allowing de facto segregation and the termination of busing are things current activists have permitted. Consider that settling. And has Augusta been integrated yet? You can only get so far, so fast. A tradition is tradition because it doesn't change. mr pine wrote: and, if you look closely, minority groups (no matter if it is gays, females, Hispanics, etc) they do not want equal rights, they want preferential treatment.
and that is wrong. and no one can argue that. Nah, I think that's an over-generalization. On the other hand, do you think majority group members want preferential treatment, would you say they are all humble, acquiescent souls who don't believe they are entitled to anything, or superior to anyone? _________________ yup, that's my name. FOR YOUR RATING PLEASURE: 4 LIKE Buttons, 1 NEUTRAL, 1 VEXED, 5 DISLIKE buttons. LC > FB
= personal fave = Eisley fans should dig it
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 09 Apr 2008 | Posts: 9641 | Location: Greater St. Louis Area
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 10:39 am
WILL OF THE PEOPLE. WE BELIEVE IN MAGIC, SO I GUESS GAY PEOPLE CAN'T MARRY YO. _________________ Audioscrobbler Now 
This is MYSPACE Gee, Blog |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 | Posts: 4250 | Location: Up here in Connecticut
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post subject: Posted: Mon Aug 16, 2010 12:04 pm
CUBSWINWORLDSERIES on Friday wrote: Expect a stay of the decision on Monday or Tuesday... http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-08-16/california-gay-marriage-re mains-banned-during-appeal.html DRMS_7888 wrote: I've never understood attacking Walker's ruling based on his sexual orientation. In 1999, this judge rejected arguments from the parents of a boy who claimed their religious rights were violated by pro-gay comments their son's teacher had made in the classroom. In 2005, he sided with City of Oakland against two employees who placed fliers promoting "natural famly, marriage and family values." What was my point? That this is not an impartial judge. I think I made my point clearly, but we can keep going down this road if you wish. 7 million California voters, in the election that sent Obama to the White House, voted for Proposition 8. Now 1 person judges the people to be in error and refused to stay the decision pending appeal. He in fact makes it clear he has no regard for the people or the constitution by his refusal to stay the decision. Clearly his decision (one person) is more important in his mind than those 7 million people who voted to Prop. 8. Well, the 9th circuit does not agree. Clearly the decision to stay this decision pending the appeals should have been in place already. But the megalomaniac was on a power trip. The issue really: Marriage is a state's right. Regulation of marriage should not be a federal issue. Oh, and marriage between one man and one woman was instituted by God. The state should not have to be atheist just because the federal government has become. Equal protection? Yes, California already provides for that under their law. Not to mention this judge did not even consider the evidence to the contrary in his opinion. Two examples, which Judge Walker did not cite in his decision, but were cited in the case: ++In 1972, Baker v. Nelson, a case over whether Minnesota violated the Constitution by issuing marriage licenses only to opposite-sex couples, was unanimously thrown out on the merits, for lack of a substantial federal question. The Supreme Court's action establishes a binding precedent in favor of Proposition 8. But Judge Walker's ruling doesn't mention Baker, much less attempt to distinguish it or accept its findings. ++Refused to address the fact that Congress, in the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, defined marriage as the "legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife." Having ignored everything courts typically rely on in making sound judgments, Walker concluded that Proposition 8 was enacted "without reason" and demonstrates "a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples [and are] . . . not as good as opposite-sex couples." Nothing in Proposition 8 supports such conclusions, particularly since California law grants same-sex couples all the benefits and protections that apply in traditional marriage. I cite Edwin Meese III in his Washington Post article of 8/17/2010. Read it if you wish. It's an opinion piece, but makes sense to me. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/16/AR2010 081604254.html?hpid=opinionsbox1 Sounds like this case will end up in a 5-4 Supreme Court decision in the coming months (or year), after the 9th circuit is done with the case. Time will tell how Justice Anthony Kennedy will rule. The other 8 votes are predictable. I'm pretty sure I stressed the Supreme Court when I was making my arguments against electing Obama (see other thread). He has appointed 2 and may appoint more before he is done. If Obama looks likely to lose in 2012, expect the remaining liberals on the court (Breyer and Ginsburg) to retire so Obama can replace them. Well, unless Hillary defeats Obama in the primary in 2012 in which case they may hang on to see what happens. But of course, Obama would need to replace Alito or Roberts or Thomas or Scalia or Kennedy to shift the court. Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer and Ginsburg are predictable liberals on the court. One more reason the coming election in 2010 and 2012 are important. Well, if 2010 goes down like 1994, and if Obama does the triangulation thing Clinton did, maybe Obama could hold on in 2012. I doubt it though. He is remaking America in a way most don't like. What was his phrase from the election cycle - "fundamentally transforming the United States of America..." Yea, I'll pass on that. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvJJP9AYgqU |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Joined: 17 Dec 2005 | Posts: 7525 | Location: Wisconsin
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
All times are GMT - 12 Hours
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
