Same Sex Marriage Thread - Part III - Page 26 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-29-2013, 10:14 PM   #376
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 06:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jive Turkey View Post
You used to have the Obi Wan avatar, right? If so, I remember thinking you were cool beans. Either way, welcome back.
You're pretty cool beans yourself, Jive. I changed my avatar back in your honor.
__________________

__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 06-29-2013, 10:18 PM   #377
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
AEON's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: California
Posts: 4,052
Local Time: 06:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
Don't be an asshole. Lose with dignity.
While "corporate/group marriages" are not a part of the Gay Rights Movement, I am curious what your view on them would be.

Should this be allowed? Should the government endorse/prevent any man or group of men be permitted to marry any woman or group of women, if they are all consenting adults.
__________________

__________________
AEON is offline  
Old 06-29-2013, 10:35 PM   #378
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,667
Local Time: 07:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitize View Post
I'm going to go out on a limb here and state my agreement with Indy that business owners shouldn't be forced to recognize gay marriage and should be allowed to, for instance, not support gay weddings.
I'm not sure what post of INDY's you're referring to so I'm honestly just asking for clarity. What do you mean by business owners shouldn't be forced to recognize gay marriage? Are you speaking to benefits here? Why would an employer have any say whatsoever about the private life of their employees, as long as it's consistent? Could an employer stop benefits if they found out their employee was cheating? Could they deny rights based on religion?

Forgive me if I'm assuming, like I said, I couldn't find the post you were referring to.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 06-29-2013, 10:59 PM   #379
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 08:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
Would you also agree if they did not want to service an interracial wedding or a Muslim wedding?
I would. And I am part of an interracial marriage, so it's not just talk with me.

I agree with digitize that the free market would punish them more effectively. Indeed, I'd do my best to make sure of it. Suing them to force them to serve me would be the last thing I'd want to do. Indeed, I would no longer desire their services and would be sure to let every one I know aware of where that business stands on a marriage like mine.

Freedom of speech is preserved, but the discrimination does not go unpunished.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 06-29-2013, 11:03 PM   #380
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 05:49 PM
This is the case that has been in the news lately

Sued by Government for Refusing to Provide Flowers for Gay Wedding, Elderly Florist Files Countersuit

and this is what I responded to.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 06-29-2013, 11:08 PM   #381
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 05:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
I would. And I am part of an interracial marriage, so it's not just talk with me.
You may want to rethink this.
If you truly believe every business has this right, then you and your wife and child could find yourself accepting Jim Crow style denial of services and public accommodations.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 06-29-2013, 11:18 PM   #382
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 08:49 PM
So here's the thing.

I think now is exactly the wrong time to decide that with the tides moving inexorably towards full equality there is no longer any need to try to change the minds of SOME opponents of gay marriage. It's exactly at this moment that people who are willing to try to understand the opponents of gay marriage and get them to change their minds can really make a big difference.

It's important to understand that not all anti-SSM folks are the same (just as not all racists are the same). The reasons, motivations, and most importantly attitudes of such people do actually vary, and I've always felt it's short-sighted to paint them all with the same "hate-filled homophobe" brush. I say this because I was one of those people when I first joined this forum a mere seven years ago, and it was partly because of people on this forum (special mention to Melon, who probably deserves lifetime credit as one of the most influential people in my life for helping me formulate this change in my understanding, and of course the ever faithful Irvine) that I came to a complete 180 on my views on homosexuality and SSM. Many of you were there to see it happen and could probably go back in the archives and find the conversations where the turnaround happened.

Further I would counter the JiveTurkey conventional wisdom that says the religious people are the most hopeless in terms of convincing them of the error of their ways. I would argue that a religious person in the proper frame of mind is a better bet to convince than a non-religious one. After all, if the only "reasons" to oppose gay marriage are religious than any one who still is against it without a religious reason is truly beyond reasoning as they have no reason to argue with. You will find many religious people, I promise you, that are finding that the traditional take on homosexuality from scripture is dissonant with the spirit of their faith which calls for love and acceptance. And for many of these people, a brusque command to junk their silly superstitions is not going to cut it. Indeed, there are many gay people who don't care to give up their religious faith thank you very much but based on what they hear from the JT's and INDY's of the world (strange bedfellows, indeed) feel that they are forced to choose between their identity as a gay person and their belief in God.

Look, I get that it feels good to sneer at the other side for their idiocy. I get the argument that some "arguments" deserve mockery and scorn. And if your only goal is to enjoy the good feeling of being right, then fine. But if you want to change some one's mind--and I for one thing, think that's kind of important--mockery, scorn, dismissal is not the way to go about it.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 06-29-2013, 11:20 PM   #383
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 08:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
You may want to rethink this.
If you truly believe every business has this right, then you and your wife and child could find yourself accepting Jim Crow style denial of services and public accommodations.
Fair point.

Re thinking now.


It's two kids now, BTW
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 06-29-2013, 11:24 PM   #384
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,667
Local Time: 07:49 PM
OK, I see what you are referring to digitize, and like deep points out it becomes a pretty gray area. I believe the florist, photographer, etc do have the right to say no, they provide a service that isn't necessary and can be a dime a dozen.
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 06-29-2013, 11:26 PM   #385
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 05:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
So here's the thing.

.....
Thank you for taking the time to write all that out.

My opinion has changed on marriage for all, too.
Awhile back I was at 'civil unions' for gays. Let marriage remain as we have always understood it to be.
Civil Unions with all the same rights as marriage seemed like a fair compromise, gays get the same treatment, effect and religious, older, traditional people get to keep their little ownership of the term, 'marriage'. Where is the harm?
Certainly a more tolerant, and inclusive attitude than people that hate gays and want their behavior criminalized.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 06-29-2013, 11:35 PM   #386
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 08:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
You may want to rethink this.
If you truly believe every business has this right, then you and your wife and child could find yourself accepting Jim Crow style denial of services and public accommodations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
Fair point.

Re thinking now.
I don't know, deep. I think there is a fine line. . .clearly I wouldn't be okay with Jim Crow style denial of service. But at the same time, I don't feel that the expression of racist ideas should be outlawed. I'm not sure where a situation like the one with this florist falls (the article itself is very annoying with it's sanctimonious tone and all). I'm sure she feels oh so noble having condescended to even hire gay people and such, but bravely and boldly drawing the line in what she imagines is such a principled way. Speaking as a believer, any time you find yourself in a position to congratulate yourself on your own righteous decision even as someone else is hurt by it, you really ought to check yourself.

That said. . .I guess I revise my opinion. While I still might personally not sue, I can support the government's choice to sue. Outside of the strictly religious confines of the church itself, you have every right to whatever discriminatory ideas you want to have as long as those ideas don't bear out in a denial of service to someone else.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 06-29-2013, 11:44 PM   #387
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 05:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BVS View Post
OK, I see what you are referring to digitize, and like deep points out it becomes a pretty gray area. I believe the florist, photographer, etc do have the right to say no, they provide a service that isn't necessary and can be a dime a dozen.

Why? Because these are personal services? A lot of towns are small and don't have many other competing services.

If a business is open to the general public, why should whole groups or classes be excluded?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 06-29-2013, 11:45 PM   #388
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 08:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitize View Post
I'm going to go out on a limb here and state my agreement with Indy that business owners shouldn't be forced to recognize gay marriage and should be allowed to, for instance, not support gay weddings. I do support gay marriage, and I think that business owners who do things like that are doing a wrong thing. I have a problem with them doing it. But I don't think that the government should block them. In all honesty, the free market will probably end up hurting them over time.

Do you think business owners shouldn't be forced to recognize interracial marriages?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-29-2013, 11:47 PM   #389
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,475
Local Time: 08:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AEON View Post

While "corporate/group marriages" are not a part of the Gay Rights Movement, I am curious what your view on them would be.

Should this be allowed? Should the government endorse/prevent any man or group of men be permitted to marry any woman or group of women, if they are all consenting adults.

I have no opinion on the subject.

I really don't. Why would I?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 06-30-2013, 12:03 AM   #390
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 05:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
I don't know, deep. I think there is a fine line. . .clearly I wouldn't be okay with Jim Crow style denial of service. But at the same time, I don't feel that the expression of racist ideas should be outlawed. I'm not sure where a situation like the one with this florist falls (the article itself is very annoying with it's sanctimonious tone and all). I'm sure she feels oh so noble having condescended to even hire gay people and such, but bravely and boldly drawing the line in what she imagines is such a principled way. Speaking as a believer, any time you find yourself in a position to congratulate yourself on your own righteous decision even as someone else is hurt by it, you really ought to check yourself.

That said. . .I guess I revise my opinion. While I still might personally not sue, I can support the government's choice to sue. Outside of the strictly religious confines of the church itself, you have every right to whatever discriminatory ideas you want to have as long as those ideas don't bear out in a denial of service to someone else.

The law/ government is not telling people what they can or can not think or even say. And religions can still discriminate and say gays and jews go straight to hell, or no gays or jews allowed.


This person chose to own a business in the State of Washington.

This is the law in WA State.

Quote:
RCW 49.60.030
Freedom from discrimination — Declaration of civil rights.


(1) The right to be free from discrimination because of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, or the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability is recognized as and declared to be a civil right. This right shall include, but not be limited to:

(a) The right to obtain and hold employment without discrimination;

(b) The right to the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement;

(c) The right to engage in real estate transactions without discrimination, including discrimination against families with children;

(d) The right to engage in credit transactions without discrimination;

(e) The right to engage in insurance transactions or transactions with health maintenance organizations without discrimination: PROVIDED, That a practice which is not unlawful under RCW 48.30.300, 48.44.220, or 48.46.370 does not constitute an unfair practice for the purposes of this subparagraph;

(f) The right to engage in commerce free from any discriminatory boycotts or blacklists. Discriminatory boycotts or blacklists for purposes of this section shall be defined as the formation or execution of any express or implied agreement, understanding, policy or contractual arrangement for economic benefit between any persons which is not specifically authorized by the laws of the United States and which is required or imposed, either directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, by a foreign government or foreign person in order to restrict, condition, prohibit, or interfere with or in order to exclude any person or persons from any business relationship on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, sex, honorably discharged veteran or military status, sexual orientation, the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability, or the use of a trained dog guide or service animal by a person with a disability, or national origin or lawful business relationship: PROVIDED HOWEVER, That nothing herein contained shall prohibit the use of boycotts as authorized by law pertaining to labor disputes and unfair labor practices; and

(g) The right of a mother to breastfeed her child in any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement.

RCW 49.60.030: Freedom from discrimination — Declaration of civil rights.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com