Marriage Equality!

[Muushka]

I like your signature. I fixed it for you.

Happy to help.
Have a nice day.

And so it begins.

 

[ariel71]

I personally believe in freedom of association and letting the free market decide whether or not a business made the right choice or not.
Now before everyone starts stomping on me, please take a moment to think about it. I (for example) own a business. I don't like people who have red hair. I don't want them in my store. Do you really think I would stay in business for this type of practice? Answer is no. Lets say I want a birthday cake decorated with bacon and a pig theme. I go to a Muslim bakery to have them bake this weird cake. Do you think that this Muslim baker should be forced to buy bacon, cook it and draw a picture of a pig just because I feel like that type of birthday cake (which, by the way, my husband would love)? To me the answer is no. I believe that businesses should be able to associate with whom they want to associate and let them find out whether or not they made a wise business decision via word of mouth. If you found out a business discriminates against Blacks, would you shop there? I wouldn't.

"I'm going to preemptively take away your rights just in case you then try to take away mine" is not a valid legal argument. The court has found that there are valid societal reasons to protect certain classes from the whims of the majority. I think this whole debate has shown that a "free market" response will not be enough to self-correct on behalf of gays, especially in the south. There were a ton of people who sent contributions to the pizza owner who said he wouldn't supply pizza to a gay wedding.

Funny you should say that. We have a religion today that isn't too kind to women.
And yet it is constantly being defended.

What religion that isn't too kind to women in this country is being defended as a source of law?

Yup. Slippery slope.

Ah yes, slippery slopes. Often proven to be a fallacious argument in any context. Also used to justify not giving the vote to black males (it might lead to giving it women) and then not giving it to women (because they then might want to enter the workplace). Quite frankly, who cares if polygamists can marry? It's a tiny subset of the population and wouldn't directly affect you. In fact, it is the illegality of polygamy that drives it underground, which can foster some of the abuses associated with it.

Actually (and I may be wrong, I'm sure I'll be told if I am) I thought that the tax concern with marriage was to encourage marriage and subsequent children to keep our country growing.

Not my point, not addressing.

In that case I guess the Catholic religion ought to lose their tax exempt status.
They are trying to influence the global warming or climate change policy.

I personally don't think any religion should be tax exempt. But the Pope's encyclical didn't violate IRS regulations in the US.

My comments are in red.

 

[Muushka]

Most countries, including the US and Canada, have tried this approach, and it did not work. If there are only one or two red-haired people in town, you might do just fine. You'll get plenty of customers with other hair colours. There might be a few who stay away because they object to you not serving the gingers, but most probably won't even know. Or maybe they think, well, I don't agree with his stance but I like his donuts and I guess everyone has the right to their opinion - those few redheads in town can just go shop in the next city.

This approach just does not work for minorities, especially minorities who face some prejudice and discrimination anyway. As you know, in the past there were many businesses that did discriminate against blacks, and did just fine. It was only after laws were passed forbidding this that things began to change.

I do agree with what you are saying. But the only difference is that we live in a different time than even 20 years ago.
That sort of discrimination simply would not be tolerated today.

 

[kaytieeldr]

(for example) own a business. I don't like people who have red hair. I don't want them in my store. Do you really think I would stay in business for this type of practice? Answer is no.

Well, it's a bad example, what with red being the least common hair color. But no, hair color is not protected under antidiscrimination laws, so you may absolutely refuse service to redheads based solely on that criterium.

Lets say I want a birthday cake decorated with bacon and a pig theme. I go to a Muslim bakery to have them bake this weird cake. Do you think that this Muslim baker should be forced to buy bacon, cook it and draw a picture of a pig just because I feel like that type of birthday cake (which, by the way, my husband would love)? To me the answer is no.

You'd have to be extremely naive or looking for trouble. No business is or should be required to purchase items or ingredients they don't normally sell/use in order to accommodate a potential or existing customer. The bakery that refused to provide a cake for a gay wedding would have had to do nothing different for that cake than for any other wedding cake.

Yup. Slippery slope.

No slope. Even ground. Marriage is still two people.

 

[gwynne]

And so it begins.

I love new beginnings. Wonderful things have happened in the past few days.
And I think it's a lovely life philosophy to believe that all lives matter.

 

[bcla]

You'd have to be extremely naive or looking for trouble. No business is or should be required to purchase items or ingredients they don't normally sell/use in order to accommodate a potential or existing customer. The bakery that refused to provide a cake for a gay wedding would have had to do nothing different for that cake than for any other wedding cake.

No slope. Even ground. Marriage is still two people.

It was in Northern Ireland, but there was a case of a bakery that was fined for not decorating a cake to the specifications of the customer. They wanted a message in support of marriage equality.

That was of course different than a case in Colorado where a bakery owner refused to even make one when he found out that it would be used for a SSM reception. The customer didn't specifically ask that it be made to any different specification.

 

[ScottOKW2K]

No slope. Even ground. Marriage is still two people.

Many have said in the past, and in this thread, that defining marriage as only between a man and a woman is Arbitrary and should be changed. Marriage as a Civil right has effectively been disassociated from any convention that may be based on past or current religious definitions as a man + woman. We have now taken it to the step where the civil union of marriage is now recognized as the union between consenting adults - a civil/social contract between individuals recognized under law as competent to make the decision.

To define this a simply two people is equally as Arbitrary. A number is just as arbitrary as a type.

I am not arguing for polygamous marriages. I am simply stating that the social contract has changed, and that there will probably be some who will argue that since their choice is between consenting adults that their choices / rights / protections under the law are being unduly abridged or limited. Don't All lives matter ?

 

[Planogirl]

Fortunately we have a First Amendment, which gives those on all sides of any issue the ability to freely express his/her opinion(s).

I should make myself a little more clear.

I don't think that churches or religious people should be silent by any means. I just don't think that they should try to force laws based on their own personal beliefs. I wouldn't agree with stopping them from doing whatever they wish but it just doesn't feel right to try to force everyone else to do what you wish.

 

[bcla]

Many have said in the past, and in this thread, that defining marriage as only between a man and a woman is Arbitrary and should be changed. Marriage as a Civil right has effectively been disassociated from any convention that may be based on past or current religious definitions as a man + woman. We have now taken it to the step where the civil union of marriage is now recognized as the union between consenting adults - a civil/social contract between individuals recognized under law as competent to make the decision.

To define this a simply two people is equally as Arbitrary. A number is just as arbitrary as a type.

I am not arguing for polygamous marriages. I am simply stating that the social contract has changed, and that there will probably be some who will argue that since their choice is between consenting adults that their choices / rights / protections under the law are being unduly abridged or limited. Don't All lives matter ?

Sure it's arbitrary. However, it's not as if there haven't been historical cases where same sex unions weren't accepted. Those conventions you brought up weren't set in stone. Also, polygamy of course had its day and still exists in some parts of the world. However, we have laws that specify that polygamy is illegal, and I don't see that changing any time soon.

Heck, marriage in a way predates organized religion. I certainly don't think of my marriage as requiring any religious approval.

 

[pryncess527]

I do agree with what you are saying. But the only difference is that we live in a different time than even 20 years ago.
That sort of discrimination simply would not be tolerated today.

How can you be so sure? Based on what I see daily, you might be surprised what could be tolerated.

And, there are many huge ares of this country that are sparsely populated. If a black man, or a gay person, or a Muslim woman walk into a pharmacy in the middle of Texas, should they be denied medication they need?
Should a grocery store in rural South Georgia, maybe the only one in town ,be permitted to refuse to sell food to Mexicans?

I'd like to think we've moved past the point where law is needed to provide equality, but I've seen far too many examples to the contrary in my short 36 years on this earth to suggest we abolish the 14t amendment and let people fend for themselves.

And I find it odd that argument would come from someone who said this:

I hope that you are right and that this will unite the country. But as I look at this thread and see the way some have been treated. Laughed at, made fun of, called names.... for expressing an opinion that is different from theirs.

On one hand you dislike people being publicly mocked and shamed for their opinion, and on the other you expect public mocking, shame, and he free market to be the tool that protects us from ignorant racism and discrimination? I'd rather just have the law do that.

 

[Planogirl]

The free market is a great thing and states' rights should be important too. The question is where to draw those lines.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

The worst is Facebook postings. I scanned my FB yesterday and well, oh boy.

I'm pleasantly surprised at the lack of an uproar on mine. One or two negative comments Friday and barely a word since. I have a LOT of small town, bible belt, "redneck" friends. DW hasn't had as good of luck on her feed though

 

[sam_gordon]

Hey Disboard we want freedom of speech with no report button.

Can I point out (as has been pointed out numerous times in the past) you have TOTAL freedom of speech on the Disboards. You can write anything you'd like. What you DON'T have is "freedom from consequences". It's a very simple principle... if you don't like the way a board is run, go to another one.

 

[bcla]

Can I point out (as has been pointed out numerous times in the past) you have TOTAL freedom of speech on the Disboards. You can write anything you'd like. What you DON'T have is "freedom from consequences". It's a very simple principle... if you don't like the way a board is run, go to another one.

No freedom of speech truly exists on a message board when there are moderators. Heck, we can't even use the word sex here without it showing up as asterisks. This is a private board with filtering software and human moderators.

Freedom of speech really means that one is generally free to find a place to air one's own views without suffering from governmental censorship or penalties.

 

[Kimberlyann11]

I'm pleasantly surprised at the lack of an uproar on mine. One or two negative comments Friday and barely a word since. I have a LOT of small town, bible belt, "redneck" friends. DW hasn't had as good of luck on her feed though

Mine has only had one negative post and it was from a former coworker who I kind of expected it from. DD didn't have as much luck. Her negative posts came from the Kentucky contingent of her dad's side of the family. She expected that too so it wasn't a huge surprise.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

Mine has only had one negative post and it was from a former coworker who I kind of expected it from. DD didn't have as much luck. Her negative posts came from the Kentucky contingent of her dad's side of the family. She expected that too so it wasn't a huge surprise.

One guy's comment wasn't "too" bad, but he ran for office a couple years ago as a 3rd Party candidate and it was a party that favors gay marriage. The instant he posted, he got hammered for hypocrasy & he ended up having to eat crow.

 

[Planogirl]

I haven't seen many negative posts. I'm in no mood for those so that's a good thing!

 

[FlightlessDuck]

The worst is Facebook postings. I scanned my FB yesterday and well, oh boy.

I am mostly friends with like-minded people. Those who aren't rarely post. Except for two that I unfollowed because they are completely insane.

 

[usd2bmd]

deleted.

 

[aristocatz]

I am mostly friends with like-minded people. Those who aren't rarely post. Except for two that I unfollowed because they are completely insane.

Most of my friends are like-minded as well. The few who are not really just replied to the news with religious quotes, which were better than posting blatant hate comments.