Same Sex Marriage Thread - Part III

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
It's illegal to refuse your services to people on the basis of skin color or religion. Why should sexual orientation be any different.

That said, I'd rather not give such people my business rather than sue them to make a point.

Unfortunately, many who are against SSM will see this as another form of an attack on freedom of religion and speech.

Come to think of it, how many anti-SSM business owners have turned away couples going on their second, third or whatever marriage? I betcha none!
 
Being gay is against the law in most countries that also allow polygamy.

But are you implying that heterosexual and homosexual monogamous marriages are superior to polygamous marriages?



We're talking about the US.

Be careful, the "religious freedom" fretting is a much more slippery slope to polygamy.

I have no opinion on polygamy. I'm gay. The two have nothing in common.

By all means, feel free to argue for the merits of polygamy.
 
Most likely because, if current trends continue, "almost nobody" will be marrying. A trend started well before SSM to be sure but only exacerbated by this ruluing IMO.

I'd love to hear your reasoning behind the opinion that allowing more people to marry will cause fewer people to marry.
 
Being gay is against the law in most countries that also allow polygamy.

But are you implying that heterosexual and homosexual monogamous marriages are superior to polygamous marriages?

Are you intentionally being obtuse? He was implying that one is born gay, but one is not born a polygamist. This is why one is outlawed and one is not. Laws against homosexuality make no sense. It's like making having brown eyes a crime.

Therefore, you cannot compare the two. It's very simple.
 
That approach won't work with INDY as I've tried it several times and he counters with stories from right-wing papers about how bigots are being prosecuted under Canada's hate speech laws now, so apparently gay marriage has resulted in us losing freedom (not that we had a lot of that to begin with, being socialists).

Well, as it happens I was on the Canadian side of Niagra Falls for a week earlier this month. Couldn't have had a better time but the price of food... jeez. With the $10 hamburgers and $17 glasses of wine I fugure we must have paid for the healthcare of at least one Canadian for 2013.

But I'd also like to praise your country for this:

‘Hate speech’ no longer part of Canada’s Human Rights Act | Canadian Politics | Canada | News | National Post



Pretty sure I remember Anitram defending this law.

Unfortunately in this country "various human rights lawyers," gay-rights zealots and others in the media and politics will be sharpening their censorship swords.


Good call.
 
Two things.

First, pretty sure I neither defended nor praised this law, but explained to you that our constitutional law operates in a different manner than yours and that therefore it was permissible to have this law as under s.1 of our Charter, you could justify the curtailment of rights.

Ok, thanks for clarifying, it was some time ago.
Second, you are quoting a Conservative Senator's opinion on the law and taking that as fact. It's as if I quoted a Republican on why it's necessary to have mandatory ultrasounds for women and then state that as a fact.

So free speech is a conservative issue now rather than a universal natural rights and individual liberty issue?
 
We're talking about the US.

I have no opinion on polygamy. I'm gay. The two have nothing in common.

Why? Why can't 3 guys or 3 women marry?
By all means, feel free to argue for the merits of polygamy.

Oh I no longer argue the merits of any marriage arrangement. As of Wed ideals are not only hateful... they are unconstitutional.
 
So free speech is a conservative issue now rather than a universal natural rights and individual liberty issue?

Why? Why can't 3 guys or 3 women marry?


Oh I no longer argue the merits of any marriage arrangement. As of Wed ideals are not only hateful... they are unconstitutional.

You've completely lost the plot. You've become the old man that argues with red lights and TV.

Free speech? You missed her point by light years.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 :wink:
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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?
 
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?
 
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?
 
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.

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom