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

[kescwi]

Really? In SC you can easily equate the two and I know because this a second marriage for both my wife and me. We both are Catholic so the church was out and we didn't really want a ceremony anyway.

When getting the license it came up that we didn't have a plan but didn't want to use one of the chuckleheads standing outside, didn't really want a ceremony either just wanted to be married. The woman giving us the license ask my wife if she was sure about that, my wife said yes, she asked for license back started writing on it and said congratulations you're married.

What is hard for me to equate is the idea that religions and the state share the same interest when it comes to marriage. They don't but when a minister, church... Performs a ceremony they are doing it for their religious beliefs and to bind the two spiritually, it just so happens that the state will accept it as legally binding the two as well.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[kescwi]

Yep he's the only one who knows everything. dws
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[beardownboiler]

Originally posted by kescwi:
Really? In SC you can easily equate the two and I know because this a second marriage for both my wife and me. We both are Catholic so the church was out and we didn't really want a ceremony anyway.

When getting the license it came up that we didn't have a plan but didn't want to use one of the chuckleheads standing outside, didn't really want a ceremony either just wanted to be married. The woman giving us the license ask my wife if she was sure about that, my wife said yes, she asked for license back started writing on it and said congratulations you're married.

What is hard for me to equate is the idea that religions and the state share the same interest when it comes to marriage. They don't but when a minister, church... Performs a ceremony they are doing it for their religious beliefs and to bind the two spiritually, it just so happens that the state will accept it as legally binding the two as well.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

I'll admit to not knowing the history of marriage, which is why I generally stay out of this debate. I would imagine that the minister has the ability to just sign your document outside of a ceremony (I'm getting married in May . . I guess I should figure out how to do that . . . ), but doesn't. I would guess that the reason for allowing the ministers to bind the people has more to do with tradition (and staffing at the courthouse, as well) more than anything. That's just a guess, but it makes some sense (I think).

 

[beardownboiler]

Re: Chik-Fil-A and "No Gays Allowed"

Originally posted by BigE23:

Originally posted by boilergeek:
Chik-Fil-A is pretty open about not accepting the gay lifestyle. If it was legal to do so, I think there is a good chance they would not allow gay people to come to their stores.

Unless the people openly announced that they were gay, how would anyone in Chik-Fil-A know? Additionally, why would anyone feel compelled to announce their sexuality in a fast food restaurant, unless they had an agenda?

This kind of thing is a common strawman. Don't worry about the practicality of it. The higher-ups at Chik-Fil-A have been pretty open about it. They don't actually discriminate (as far as I know), but that's not because they choose not to.

Hell, look at this case. Had these people just gone and formed a non-profit (and provided themselves salaries equal to almost the total profits of the chapel), there wouldn't even be a debate. When people act logically and rationally, there is no need to tweak the laws (in most circumstances, and if you ignore changing societal norms, etc.). It's when weird situations pop up that things get interesting. These people didn't act logically, and now we have this bizarre case (which is less bizarre given the new info).

 

[beardownboiler]

Originally posted by kescwi:
Yep he's the only one who knows everything. dws
Posted from Rivals Mobile

I think we have plenty of them on this board . . most of them happen to be on one side. I chalk up qaz's attitude (for lack of a better term) to the fact that he's pretty outnumbered on this board (among the . . . um . . boisterous types).

 

[qazplm]

so you think

1. that it requires any "expertise" to know the difference between gender and gender roles?

2. that it's "claiming" superiority to debate one side on a message board set up to, wait for it, to debate stuff?

So just so I'm clear, what's the limit on the number of topics I'm allowed to comment on and have an opinion on but NOT be "claiming superiority?" Again, you're butt hurt because you thought Idaho state law trumped the Federal circuit. You talk about other boisterous folks then pull the same idiocy they pull. If I agreed with you, you'd have no problem with my "arrogance" just like E23 wouldn't if I agreed with him all the time. It's a silly internet ad hominem tactic that's both boring and purposeless.

 

[beardownboiler]

Re: so you think

Originally posted by qazplm:
1. that it requires any "expertise" to know the difference between gender and gender roles?

2. that it's "claiming" superiority to debate one side on a message board set up to, wait for it, to debate stuff?

So just so I'm clear, what's the limit on the number of topics I'm allowed to comment on and have an opinion on but NOT be "claiming superiority?" Again, you're butt hurt because you thought Idaho state law trumped the Federal circuit. You talk about other boisterous folks then pull the same idiocy they pull. If I agreed with you, you'd have no problem with my "arrogance" just like E23 wouldn't if I agreed with him all the time. It's a silly internet ad hominem tactic that's both boring and purposeless.

I never claimed Idaho law was superior to federal law. I said the ruling didn't apply to Idaho private businesses. No wonder you can't understand nuance; you can't even read a basic sentence. That case stands for the proposition that any governmental action that
discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation is suspect. That's
it. Your "Idaho law > federal law" strawman is painfully obvious.

I'm arguing AGAINST my normal stance, here. So, you can't really make any kind of claim that I'm "butthurt" or arguing based on emotion. You, on the other hand, are claiming you are superior by stating that others are (and this is a quote based off memory, so I apologize if it is slightly off) "ignorant of science" (while purporting to know science via your statements) and also that you know the law. You aren't stating opinions. You are claiming others are ignorant, while you are knowledgeable. That's claiming intellectual superiority.

Every attorney on this board will tell you that there is a difference between government and private actions. This is the kind of nuance you're missing. You missed it in every post.

This post was edited on 10/23 1:00 PM by beardownboiler

 

[qazplm]

I'm pretty sure

that churches/ministers can help with the legal/civil paperwork part of marriage as well.

But kescwi's point is that there are two components to marriage, one is civil, one is religious.
No one is saying you are forced to conduct the religious component, but you can't discriminate on the civil part.
When you are running a for-profit business, you can't hide behind religion to discriminate against folks because they are black, or Mexican, or, now, gay.

As far as the history of marriage, it's obviously pretty complicated, but it wasn't ALWAYS a religious ceremony, and it certainly has plenty of history as being more about melding families (for stability and financial reasons) or for political reasons (Prince X marries Duchess Y) than for love. Having said that, obviously in the Western world, there is a long tie between marriage and religion, but I think kescwi is right, that link is not nearly the same anymore, and there were always competing secular/civil and religious motivations/reasons behind marriage.

 

[qazplm]

no you argued

that the establishment of sexual orientation as a quasi-protected class somehow has no ramifications outside of state action, which isn't "nuance" it's just plain wrong. Yes, there are differences between government and private actions, that's not a "nuanced" point, it's a very BROAD point. There are also differences between what a private person can do AS A BUSINESS SERVING THE PUBLIC, and what a private person can do in a church, or in their own home.

Listing sexual orientation alongside gender as a quasi-protected class has ramifications OUTSIDE of government-only actions. Any attorney will tell you that as well.

Let me repeat to it again, disagreeing with you on something is not "claiming you are superior." I didn't say I had a higher IQ, or that women love me more, I said you were wrong. Which, is the EXACT SAME THING you are doing in reverse...but guess what I'm NOT doing, claiming you think you are superior.

 

[beardownboiler]

Re: no you argued

Originally posted by qazplm:
that the establishment of sexual orientation as a quasi-protected class somehow has no ramifications outside of state action, which isn't "nuance" it's just plain wrong. Yes, there are differences between government and private actions, that's not a "nuanced" point, it's a very BROAD point. There are also differences between what a private person can do AS A BUSINESS SERVING THE PUBLIC, and what a private person can do in a church, or in their own home.

Listing sexual orientation alongside gender as a quasi-protected class has ramifications OUTSIDE of government-only actions. Any attorney will tell you that as well.

Let me repeat to it again, disagreeing with you on something is not "claiming you are superior." I didn't say I had a higher IQ, or that women love me more, I said you were wrong. Which, is the EXACT SAME THING you are doing in reverse...but guess what I'm NOT doing, claiming you think you are superior.

Oh. I'm claiming you're wrong on the law. I KNOW that I know more than you on the law. I'm not pretending it's an opinion. I'm arguing a point based on my superior knowledge of the law. You can say you didn't claim you were superior . . but you did claim that others were ignorant (your word), while purporting to know what you were talking about. You're still doing it. I'm not claiming to know science, because I'm not great at it. So, I leave that to others. I AM claiming to know the law. I'm not hiding behind the "I'm not saying I'm better" garbage, because that serves no purpose.

As to your claims about my statements: I never said that, either. It's another strawman. There are ramifications, in general. But that case has no bearing on this chapel (under the initial assumed facts). And yes, there are differences between what businesses can do and what churches or private citizens can do. That's what laws are for. Here, we aren't debating a discriminatory law (which is what those levels of scrutiny are about, btw). In fact, its' the chapel challenging a local anti-discrimination ordinance, not the other way around. We're debating whether this chapel would have a first amendment right to practice religion. The main argument isn't even about the rights of gays, but about the rights of corporations. While the battle goes on in the meadow, you're off fighting a tree. You're distracted by the splash issues, and are ignoring the real point.

 

[qazplm]

lol

so that's really what this is, that someone you deem inferior in the law is telling you, who is superior about the law, about something on the law.

Does your middle name rhyme with projection? So this absolutely is about butt-hurt, how dare you disagree in what I think I'm superior to you on!!

The only person with the "initial assumed facts" was you. As I've said repeatedly, you've attempted to create an extremely narrow set of facts to create an extremely narrow argument then blown it back up to say "this is a really nuanced issue."

And you don't have a battle about the rights of corporations BUT FOR there being some putative right in individuals.

And the chapel fighting the anti-discrimination ordinance might have a wee bit better chance of winning if the class they want to discriminate against wasn't JUST put into a protected class by the Federal Circuit Court earlier this year, wouldn't you say?

 

[beardownboiler]

Re: lol

Originally posted by qazplm:
so that's really what this is, that someone you deem inferior in the law is telling you, who is superior about the law, about something on the law.

Does your middle name rhyme with projection? So this absolutely is about butt-hurt, how dare you disagree in what I think I'm superior to you on!!

The only person with the "initial assumed facts" was you. As I've said repeatedly, you've attempted to create an extremely narrow set of facts to create an extremely narrow argument then blown it back up to say "this is a really nuanced issue."

And you don't have a battle about the rights of corporations BUT FOR there being some putative right in individuals.

And the chapel fighting the anti-discrimination ordinance might have a wee bit better chance of winning if the class they want to discriminate against wasn't JUST put into a protected class by the Federal Circuit Court earlier this year, wouldn't you say?

You have yet to address your comments about others being "ignorant." Your response is that it's merely projection. I didn't realize your statements were projections of mine. And again, I don't think I am superior to you on this. I know I am. I don't know that about other areas, so I generally leave them alone. On this, you're beat. I'm sorry that you don't understand it, but you lost days ago.

And yes, there were initial assumed facts because not everything was known on this board. It eventually turned into an academic argument, when the actual facts arrived at the board. So, whether I wound creating a narrow hypothetical is irrelevant. You're arguing against how the law applies to that hypothetical. I've already stated that the new facts render any debate irrelevant as to the actual chapel. I've said it is a nuanced issue from the start. You act as if that's a new statement. IIRC, it was in my very first post.

"And you don't have a battle about the rights of corporations BUT FOR there being some putative right in individuals."
What? I guess if you want to look at it the other way, you can ask how far the individual's right extends into the realm of the corporation, but it would still hinge on what rights the corporation has.

And here's what you're missing about this entire thing. That local ordinance is what is extending the prohibition on discrimination to private entities. It's not SmithKline.

Address one post point by point, and I'll get back to you. And I mean it. Actually go through and respond to each and every sentence in a way that makes sense. That's the only way I can fathom that will keep you from fighting with strawmen off to the side. Until then, I'm done.

Go get 'em, qaz.

 

[boilergeek]

Re: Chik-Fil-A and "No Gays Allowed"

Have you ever held hands with a girl in a public place?

I'd also have to guess that the "No Gays Allowed" sign on the front door would probably work pretty well, though a Chicken loving homosexual could go undercover and still get a sandwich.

 

[qazplm]

this board

is the only place to know stuff? The facts were as they were whether or not the "board" knew about them. No, the fact that you created a narrow hypo is absolutely relevant. You are free to feel you've "beaten me" all you want, just as I'm free to think the opposite. The difference is I don't go off on silly rants about "superior."

The point is that if there are no individual rights involved, then folks aren't going to be TOO worried about what rights the corporation has. For their to be a conflict, usually, some individual has to say those rights of that corporation infringe on my rights as individual, otherwise, it's a pretty vanilla public policy argument.

I'm not "missing" anything. I didn't say "Smithkline" was a case about extending prohibitions, I said "Smithkline" just added gays to the protected class list. But let me ask you this, so your belief is that, if a company decides "we ain't sellin' to blacks" that unless there's a local ordinance, no problems there legally?

I've addressed points point by point as they were raised, you're the one who keeps moving around (well ignore this, ignore that, let's pretend now the facts are like this). What's hilarious is that you've projected everything you've been doing in this thread onto me. You're all hotfire thinking this is "A REALLY NUANCED ISSUE" as if you've discovered FTL travel, and I came along (and OTHERS CAME ALONG) and said, no not so much, and now you're all swole up.