ADVERTISEMENT

This is what "tolerance" really means re: same-sex marriage

Originally posted by boilergeek:
It is as much religious as a for profit marriage company is.

That is the whole point. There are ways for this group to turn it into a protected religious organization. They just can't then operate like a business.
Click to expand...
What service is this chapel to provide. Be specific. Don't merely say gay marriage. Assuming they offer one specific type of religious marriage (fora religion that is opposed to gay marriage), what service are they to offer? Bear in mind that no minister can be forced to administer a ceremony that is against the religion he ministers for.
 
Re: nope it's exactly how it works

Originally posted by qazplm:
if you want to discriminate against folks you can't charge money for profit, particularly for protected classes.

if you want to discriminate against folks, then there are a couple of legit, remaining paths, and one of them is a private, not-for-profit religious entity.

Like I said, you are narrowing the parameters so much that basically you are describing a church holding a religious-only ceremony.
Click to expand...
Is sexual orientation a protected class in Idaho? (It's not, aside from federal employment/benefits)

And this is a narrow issue. How can you not see that? It's extremely narrow.
 
I don't understand your question.

They are a for profit business. That means they have to conform to the non-discrimination laws already on the books. There are ways to get that type of protection.

If I opened up boilergeek's Christian Bookstore I'd still have to operate under the same laws and regulations that the pet food store next to me does. I may be selling Christian books but I can't decide that Jews and Muslims can't buy them. It's just how it is, and desegregation has been a GREAT thing in our society that has been well worth the minor "religious injustices" like this chapel.

Now, if I were a non-profit church/charity I'd have different rights. The Catholic Church is well within their rights to deny marriage rights even to Catholics who don't meet their standards. However, if they were a for profit business they'd operate under different rules.
 
They certify the marriage for the state isn't that where the for-profit part comes into play? Kind of like a for-profit notary public saying they won't notarize, whatever, because someone is gay?

You just can't do, so their option is change the way they do business or go out of business.

We have already made for-profit corporations people, lord help us if they can find more protection by declaring themselves a religion as well.
 
Re: That's not even remotely true

That makes no sense. That means everything the government says you can't do is violating your rights.

Do you have a right to murder? It is the government that is saying you can't. If the only options are "protect them or violate them" then where does your right to murder fall? Is the government violating your right to murder?

The laws and rights granted by our government is simply a collection of what our society thinks is the best way to run things. Now, you are free to march on Washington to bring back segregation. If enough people agree with you then you may get the right to segregate. However, right now, public businesses do not have the right to segregate and likely never will again.
 
Re: nope it's exactly how it works

to some level, particularly after the recent Supreme Court case on the Defense of Marriage Act, yes, sexual orientation is, at some level, a protected class. It might not be strict scrutiny level like race and gender (yet), but it's clearly moved beyond rational basis level. I think that's clear in every ruling since then on gay marriage at the District and Court of Appeals level rulings on banning gay marriage.

It's not a narrow issue. Your are creating possible hypos based on information not even there yet to presuppose a situation where it might be narrow, and doing so in a way that effectively makes it a church that makes a little side money. My point is, it's an easy fix, charge enough to cover your expenses and nothing more aka become a non-profit religious entity.

That's not what they are though. They are a business that does weddings.
 
Originally posted by boilergeek:
I don't understand your question.

They are a for profit business. That means they have to conform to the non-discrimination laws already on the books. There are ways to get that type of protection.

If I opened up boilergeek's Christian Bookstore I'd still have to operate under the same laws and regulations that the pet food store next to me does. I may be selling Christian books but I can't decide that Jews and Muslims can't buy them. It's just how it is, and desegregation has been a GREAT thing in our society that has been well worth the minor "religious injustices" like this chapel.

Now, if I were a non-profit church/charity I'd have different rights. The Catholic Church is well within their rights to deny marriage rights even to Catholics who don't meet their standards. However, if they were a for profit business they'd operate under different rules.
Click to expand...
Didn't I already address the bookstore? That's not the same, at all. Gays may buy Christian books at the bookstore, because the service they offer is not a religious service. It relates to religion, but is not religious, itself. They cannot force the bookstore to sell books it does not wish to sell, but they are able to buy any books it does sell.

If this place were a "Christian Chapel" that either a) provided an optional minister, but allowed others to bring one; b) didn't provide ministers; or c) provided an array of different types of ministers (even two Christian denominations, even if they were both opposed to gay marriage), this chapel would, essentially, just be a venue. The service they would provide would not be exclusively religious.

There is a crucial (very crucial) point that needs to be clarified (it's not). And that is the type of ministers they provide. Going back to the first pgraph: what you might be asking this chapel to do is offer a service they do not offer. It's not about the chapel, itself. It is about the ministers it provides.

What I'm arguing is that this chapel has a very narrow argument to make. If even one element of this does not go in the chapel's favor, it loses (and rightfully so. The way it is set up is stupid.).
 
Re: nope it's exactly how it works

Originally posted by qazplm:
to some level, particularly after the recent Supreme Court case on the Defense of Marriage Act, yes, sexual orientation is, at some level, a protected class. It might not be strict scrutiny level like race and gender (yet), but it's clearly moved beyond rational basis level. I think that's clear in every ruling since then on gay marriage at the District and Court of Appeals level rulings on banning gay marriage.

It's not a narrow issue. Your are creating possible hypos based on information not even there yet to presuppose a situation where it might be narrow, and doing so in a way that effectively makes it a church that makes a little side money. My point is, it's an easy fix, charge enough to cover your expenses and nothing more aka become a non-profit religious entity.

That's not what they are though. They are a business that does weddings.
Click to expand...
No. It's not a protected class at the Idaho state level. It's not. Look it up. Bring me the law that says it is. All of these rulings relate to state bans on gay marriage. That's not at issue, here.

I'm stating we do not have the information. If we're creating hypos, there is ONE possible outcome that goes for the chapel, and that has a lot of very specific requirements. EVERY OTHER OUTCOME goes against them. This issue is very narrow. You can state that it is not, but it is. Then again, based on your ridiculous assertion and justification for sexual orientation being a protected class at the Idaho state level, I'm not surprised.

And yes . . they are a business that does weddings . . but what kind of weddings do they do? (You don't know, btw. Nor do I. That's the rub.)
 
The problem is that you are acting like religion owns marriage. They are offering a legally binding government marriage service. I was married by someone similar who was an ordained minister who even injected some religion into the ceremony. I would almost certainly have been denied marriage in a Catholic church based on a poor attendance record.

How about this then? Let's say a local diner offers "Christmas dinner". Can they suddenly say no Jews or Muslims allowed? Of course they can't. The best they can do is make it clear that they are offering something designed for Christians, which is legal enough to probably keep everyone away. This would still be a religious service they were providing.

I think the big problem with your argument is that you seem to think that any business has a right to offer religious services and then discriminate based off of them. This is just not true. We have a system designed which allows this. It just doesn't happen to be allowed with for profit businesses. You can't just slap on a Christian label and suddenly have an excuse to discriminate against whoever you want.

Realistically, this chapel could offer a service where they marry anyone, but spend the whole time talking about the evils of homosexuality. They'd probably have to do this for all ceremonies with both straight and gay couples but this would probably be considered acceptable.
 
Re: That's not even remotely true

Originally posted by boilergeek:
That makes no sense. That means everything the government says you can't do is violating your rights.

Do you have a right to murder? It is the government that is saying you can't. If the only options are "protect them or violate them" then where does your right to murder fall? Is the government violating your right to murder?

The laws and rights granted by our government is simply a collection of what our society thinks is the best way to run things. Now, you are free to march on Washington to bring back segregation. If enough people agree with you then you may get the right to segregate. However, right now, public businesses do not have the right to segregate and likely never will again.
Click to expand...
He had a pretty horrible response to this question somewhere in an earlier thread. I'm not going to find it, but it was pretty out there. He wound up chasing his tail in that thread . . . it was a good time. But seriously, addressing that point only serves to frustrate. I'll save you some time: You're a leftist, because you aren't a hardline conservative. You want to bring around a one-world government populated only with brown people, and want to keep white men down, because of . . . white guilt or something. (I think that's the standard response. . . I hope I'm wrong, because it'll be amusing to hear something new.)
 
Re: nope it's exactly how it works

If they aren't a protected class then how could they get fined for discriminating against them? What am I missing here?
 
Originally posted by boilergeek:
The problem is that you are acting like religion owns marriage. They are offering a legally binding government marriage service. I was married by someone similar who was an ordained minister who even injected some religion into the ceremony. I would almost certainly have been denied marriage in a Catholic church based on a poor attendance record.

How about this then? Let's say a local diner offers "Christmas dinner". Can they suddenly say no Jews or Muslims allowed? Of course they can't. The best they can do is make it clear that they are offering something designed for Christians, which is legal enough to probably keep everyone away. This would still be a religious service they were providing.

I think the big problem with your argument is that you seem to think that any business has a right to offer religious services and then discriminate based off of them. This is just not true. We have a system designed which allows this. It just doesn't happen to be allowed with for profit businesses. You can't just slap on a Christian label and suddenly have an excuse to discriminate against whoever you want.

Realistically, this chapel could offer a service where they marry anyone, but spend the whole time talking about the evils of homosexuality. They'd probably have to do this for all ceremonies with both straight and gay couples but this would probably be considered acceptable.
Click to expand...
This is the Chik-fil-A model. ^^^^^ They made a huge amount of money off that "eat-in" or whatever ridiculous thing it was.
 
Originally posted by qazplm:
it's a pretty clear demarcation line. Not for profit v for profit. No one is going to the Catholic Church saying you must marry gays. No one would remotely be successful anywhere with said argument, nor should they be. However, if you are going to go for profit, then you cease to be a not for profit religious entity and you become a business.

I mean this is settled law. All they have to do to avoid this is to make it a not for profit.
Click to expand...
Haven't you always been a proponent of letting the free market decide? If this for profit business chooses not to serve gays, wouldn't the outcry be so great that it would shut down due to lacking business? Wasn't this your thought process behind Mozilla's action to fire their CEO for his view on gay marriage? Mozilla viewed it as so unpopular they didn't want to deal with the ramifications so they fired him... The free market worked, you said. How can you then toe the other side of the line here?

If you are going to tell this company they must marry gays, why should you be able to fire the CEO for a political donation to an organization opposing gay marriage without also facing a charge of offending civil liberties? There is a hint of hypocrisy here...

Posted from Rivals Mobile
 
Like I said


Looks like the news and entertainment media have done their jobs.

Go ahead and provide ANY evidence that Chik-Fil-A treats homosexuals any differently than other customers or employees. This is pure ignorant speculation on your part driven by agenda-driven media sources.
 
Re: That's not even remotely true

That means everything the government says you can't do is violating your rights.

No, you're making no sense. You can't murder because its a violation of others' rights. Got it? That would be a situation where the government is protecting our rights.

Do you have a right to murder? It is the government that is saying you can't.

No, its a self-evident truth that we don't have a right to deprive others of their rights.

However, right now, public businesses do not have the right to segregate and likely never will again.

Yes, they do have that right. It happens all the time. You need to rid your mind of the idea that segregation and discrimination are automatically bad things.

The laws and rights granted by our government is simply a collection of what our society thinks is the best way to run things.

Wrong. But, again, what your're talking inevitably leads to tyranny.
 
Re: Like I said

Originally posted by GMM:

Looks like the news and entertainment media have done their jobs.

Go ahead and provide ANY evidence that Chik-Fil-A treats homosexuals any differently than other customers or employees. This is pure ignorant speculation on your part driven by agenda-driven media sources.
Click to expand...
Nobody ever alleged that. I'd be pretty surprised if you found a source for that.
 
"Free market at work"

Yes, he did say that with regards to what Mozilla did. Good catch.

There is a hint of hypocrisy here...

No, there is no hypocrsiy here. He's consistently promoting the leftist agenda. That is, tear down traditions and rub conservatives/Christians' noses in it.

Further, he doesn't believe in the free market. He only faked it to justify supporting a result he agreed with.
 
Re: Like I said

Nobody ever alleged that.

Huh? boilergeek clearly alleged it.

I'd be pretty surprised if you found a source for that.

I know, which is why I challenged him on it. The news/entertainment media's goal was to demonize Chik-Fil-A as haters of gay people. It worked.
 
This isn't really the free market though, is it? Yes the couple are the ones using the chapel but the State of Idaho is requiring proof of the marriage as well. So if these folks are working for profit to fulfill a need of the State then they really have no choice but to comply to the wishes of the State.

It's the difference IMHO between a true religion and this wedding chapel, the Catholic Church is preforming the ceremony to conform to their rules of marriage, not Idaho, and if you want to be a religion then you're non-profit.
 
always? No.

Not when it concerns improper discrimination. I'm certainly not in favor of the free market because there are enough folks either prejudice (or sexist or what have you) or indifferent to same that the free market would in fact not correct wide swaths of unofficial segregation.

I do not want a country where a black person has to move a 100 miles to be able to have an area where they can go to any restaurant without being told they don't serve black people here.

No the outcry wouldn't necessarily force them out of business at all depending on where they are.

No this is not like Mozilla. The company decided that his working for them hurt their bottom line so they let him go. The real issue here is you wouldn't make the same argument here if we replaced "gay" with "black" or "Jewish." Folks are reacting to this because they don't like the evolution of gay to a protected class along with race, religion, and gender.
 
Federal trumps State

If it isn't considered a protected class in the state it's only because someone has yet to raise the issue in Federal court yet. It's inevitable. Despite "NOLO's" at least passive argument that homosexuality is not a protected Federal class, the reality is that in most Federal Circuits now, it all but is, and the DOMA decision really makes it some version of a protected class nationwide.

Read the court cases that have almost universally looked at that case and made the argument that rational basis scrutiny is no longer sufficient in dealing with discrimination against sexual preference.
 
Re: Federal trumps State

Originally posted by qazplm:
If it isn't considered a protected class in the state it's only because someone has yet to raise the issue in Federal court yet. It's inevitable. Despite "NOLO's" at least passive argument that homosexuality is not a protected Federal class, the reality is that in most Federal Circuits now, it all but is, and the DOMA decision really makes it some version of a protected class nationwide.

Read the court cases that have almost universally looked at that case and made the argument that rational basis scrutiny is no longer sufficient in dealing with discrimination against sexual preference.
Click to expand...
Yes. Federal trumps state. But eliminating bans on gay marriage is not the same as creating a protected class. And "it's inevitable" is not the same as "it's the law." We're arguing the law, not what you want to happen.

This post was edited on 10/21 4:53 PM by beardownboiler
 
Re: Like I said

I never said they did. In my opinion, I think they would if they could. However, that would be illegal.

Maybe you should spend less time reading the news and entertainment media and read what people are actually saying to you.
 
Re: That's not even remotely true

So the government can take away rights to protect other peoples rights? Sounds kind of like how the government protects the rights of certain groups from being denied services by public companies! Glad it is settled. We must protect the rights of gay people just like we protect the rights of those who do not want to be subjected to a system where we can kill each other.

"Yes, they do have that right. It happens all the time. You need to rid your mind of the idea that segregation and discrimination are automatically bad things."
-So can I put up a sign on my store that says "No Jews or Blacks allowed"? I'm guessing that is a no. Please describe a situation where a public business is allowed to segregate against Jews or Blacks.
 
Re: Like I said

Originally posted by boilergeek:
I never said they did. In my opinion, I think they would if they could. However, that would be illegal.

Maybe you should spend less time reading the news and entertainment media and read what people are actually saying to you.
Click to expand...
Look, I think it's about time you, as a leftist thug, addressed the issue of communists using "tolerance" and "equality" to steal the rights of lawful gun owners and healthcare hoarders nationwide. What say you? You're skirting the issue, here, which is your desire to control the world via one world government.
wink.r191677.gif
 
Re: Like I said


Originally posted by beardownboiler:
Originally posted by boilergeek:
I never said they did. In my opinion, I think they would if they could. However, that would be illegal.

Maybe you should spend less time reading the news and entertainment media and read what people are actually saying to you.
Click to expand...
Look, I think it's about time you, as a leftist thug, addressed the issue of communists using "tolerance" and "equality" to steal the rights of lawful gun owners and healthcare hoarders nationwide. What say you? You're skirting the issue, here, which is your desire to control the world via one world government.
wink.r191677.gif
Click to expand...
Was it my anti-segregation stance that exposed me?
 
Re: Like I said

Originally posted by boilergeek:

Originally posted by beardownboiler:
Originally posted by boilergeek:
I never said they did. In my opinion, I think they would if they could. However, that would be illegal.

Maybe you should spend less time reading the news and entertainment media and read what people are actually saying to you.
Click to expand...
Look, I think it's about time you, as a leftist thug, addressed the issue of communists using "tolerance" and "equality" to steal the rights of lawful gun owners and healthcare hoarders nationwide. What say you? You're skirting the issue, here, which is your desire to control the world via one world government.
wink.r191677.gif
Click to expand...
Was it my anti-segregation stance that exposed me?
Click to expand...
You mean your putting the rights of people over the rights of businesses? Yes.
 
Re: That's not even remotely true

So the government can take away rights to protect other peoples rights?

Um, no, dumbass. You don't have a right to murder. This should be self-evidently clear.

"segregate against"? I think that might be metaphysically impossible.

Regardless, you never mentioned racial or ethnic segregation. You said "segregation". Look around--segregation happens all the time. You're for it in many cases.

But, if you want a real world example according to your precious beliefs, I look forward to that new documentary about the life of MLK starring Lucy Liu in the lead role.
 
Re: That's not even remotely true

Originally posted by GMM:
So the government can take away rights to protect other peoples rights?

Um, no, dumbass. You don't have a right to murder. This should be self-evidently clear.

"segregate against"? I think that might be metaphysically impossible.

Regardless, you never mentioned racial or ethnic segregation. You said "segregation". Look around--segregation happens all the time. You're for it in many cases.

But, if you want a real world example according to your precious beliefs, I look forward to that new documentary about the life of MLK starring Lucy Liu in the lead role.
Click to expand...
Post of the day. My God . . .
confused0020.r191677.gif
 
Correction

You mean your putting the rights of people over the rights of businesses?

You mean violating the rights of business owners on behalf of a politically correct victim group? Yes.

There, fixed it for ya.
 
Re: Correction

Originally posted by GMM:
You mean your putting the rights of people over the rights of businesses?

You mean violating the rights of business owners on behalf of a politically correct victim group? Yes.

There, fixed it for ya.
Click to expand...
It's about the owners? I have a question, then . . . what is the liability protection for business owners from torts committed by the business?
 
Re: Correction

It's about the owners?

Duh. Do you think once you own a business you suddenly lose your rights?

For what reasons do you have a right to boycott a business?

I have a question, then . . . what is the liability protection for business owners from torts committed by the business?

I don't really care right now. You can have your geeky legal discussion with somebody else.
 
Re: That's not even remotely true

Why don't I have a right to murder? Who decided this?

I said segregation by a public company. Please provide a good example of segregation by a public company.
 
Re: Correction

Originally posted by GMM:
It's about the owners?

Duh. Do you think once you own a business you suddenly lose your rights?

For what reasons do you have a right to boycott a business?

I have a question, then . . . what is the liability protection for business owners from torts committed by the business?

I don't really care right now. You can have your geeky legal discussion with somebody else.
Click to expand...
It gets to the heart of the matter. What an individual does is his business. However, what the business does is not merely his business. Conducting business is a public matter. If a person were allowed to merely run a business as an extension of himself (directly in line with his personal beliefs), he should also not be insulated from liability for wrongs committed by that business.

At the end of the day, this actually addresses the very issue at hand, here. This case is fascinating for the very peculiarities it presents. Call it geeky all you want, but actually knowing the law and how it functions would serve you well in making arguments that aren't merely "leftist!" based.
 
Re: always?


Originally posted by qazplm:
Some have religious reasons for slavery, or racism, or gender differences in work/value. Should we honor those as well?

And those reasons are genuine, as in legitimately held.

They are not forced to do anything, anymore than someone is forced to serve African Americans or hire the disabled. If you truly don't want to do that, you can simply not engage in business anymore (or you can pay a fine or whatnot). No one is going to jail, or having a gun pulled on them.

But, if you choose to run a for profit institution, then you are going to have to abide by certain rules, including non-discrimination. If you run a private institution, like a church, then you will be able to discriminate a lot more.
Click to expand...
This is why I said that it's a gray area - there are powerful and convincing arguments on both sides.
 
I'll say it again

read the cases. Yes, a protected class IS being created. Not quite strict scrutiny/race/gender protection, but protections nonetheless.

See the 2nd Circuit in US v. Windsor, holding that sexual orientation was a quasi-suspect class and raising the bar to intermediate scrutiny (one step below strict scrutiny for race, gender, etc).
Then the Supremes took the case and struck down DOMA. Following that, the 9th Circuit followed the 2nd Circuit's reasoning:

"Windsor review is not rational basis review. In its words and its deed, Windsor
established a level of scrutiny for classifications based on sexual
orientation that is unquestionably higher than rational basis review. In
other words, Windsor requires that heightened scrutiny be applied to equal protection claims involving sexual orientation."

If you are saying, as the majority in Windsor did, that you can't have DOMA because it violates the EP rights of a group, you are, by definition, saying that group gets special protections. It's the VERY reason why Scalia and the dissenters were so upset and predicted, in their dissent, correctly, that this would then lead to gay marriage bans being overturned, because the logic is inevitable and clear.

So, with respect, you are dead wrong on this on the law and the legal winds as it were.

Edit for one error: Gender actually isn't a suspect but a quasi suspect classification, so sexual orientation would be equivalent to gender.

This post was edited on 10/21 6:46 PM by qazplm
 
I cant agree

the only powerful reason on one side is, we think gays are especially bad/evil/immoral because our version of our religion tells us so (never mind that there are plenty of Christian sects that are pro-gay).

I see no difference than if someone says, my particular sect thinks blacks are inferior (see e.g. Mormons just a generation and a half ago until their leader had a "revelation from God" that blacks were no longer inferior), or my particular sect thinks Jews are in league with Satan.

I can respect your right to personally believe whatever you want to, no one can make you think anything, but if you are going to run a for-profit business, then as a society we get to limit how the exercise of those beliefs affect others.
 
Re: then, again, it's real simple


Originally posted by qazplm:
if you are doing this as religion, than do what actual religions do, do it for non-profit. Then you get the same protections a church gets to only marry, religiously, those folks you want to.

but you aren't doing it as a religion, you are doing it as a business with a civil component to it. And there is no evidence that these folks are limiting it to their religion, whatever sect they are a part of.
Click to expand...
Part of my profession as a minister is the performing of wedding ceremonies. Almost always I get paid for this service. It is that way for every minister I know. Some set the rates for a wedding, others simply accept whatever is offered - but all get compensated for doing so.

If your logic is as simple as you are claiming, then it is not a leap to suggest that the law mandates that, as long as I am getting paid for doing weddings, I must agree to perform same-sex marriages. Which would leave many ministers in a serious lurch, as one way that ministers can afford to stay at small churches is because of the fees they get from weddings and funerals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

tjreese

This can't be true or we would have heard about it on CNN, MSNBC, CBS and ABC or other media. Besides,

Replies
14
Views
5K
Free Board: General Discussion Forum
typeviic
typeviic
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back