Supreme Court Ruling on Same Sex Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
DrTaffy said:
That is like saying that it is not discrimination to only allow people to ride in the back of the bus. Refusing only some service is still discrimination.
Click to expand...
:confused: This analogy makes absolutely no sense with regard to the comment.

Try again.
 
I think the rational may well discriminate against the irrational - careful. I am not sure we can just ASSUME one is superior to the other.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
Completely different subject. Business owners agree to abide by public accommodation law as a condition of operating a business that caters to the general public.
Click to expand...
So business owners cannot decide what it is that they “cater” to the general public?

Recall that “gay marriage” wasn’t even a legally recognized entity when the bakery was compelled to provide a non-existent kind of wedding cake for a non-existent kind of function, as if the gay couple had some kind of “right” to tell the business owners what kinds of cakes they were obligated to sell.

A roughly equivalent scenario would be walking into a bakery and expecting the bakers to take my request for a “dog wedding” cake, a “two brothers wedding cake” or a “father and son wedding cake.” Surely two brothers who “love each other” and pledge their commitment to each other for the rest of their lives have equal grounds, given the revised definition of marriage, to a wedding and cake that a gay couple now has.

So should a bakery be compelled to provide a “two brothers wedding cake” in advance of any ruling by SCOTUS that such a reality is even sanctioned by the constitution?

Why shouldn’t they have to, given that sexual orientation towards one’s own brother is no more or less justifiable than to anyone else of the same sex, sexual “orientation” being a protected phenomenon?

This isn’t “accommodation” by any stretch, it is coercion, plain and simple.

Also keep in mind that the bakers never refused to serve gay individuals any other of their goods, so they weren’t being “selective” or discriminatory on who was being served. This was a travesty of justice. :mad:
 
Peter_Plato said:
So business owners cannot decide what it is that they “cater” to the general public?

Recall that “gay marriage” wasn’t even a legally recognized entity when the bakery was compelled to provide a non-existent kind of wedding cake for a non-existent kind of function, as if the gay couple had some kind of “right” to tell the business owners what kinds of cakes they were obligated to sell.
Click to expand...
The difference is not in the products they sell. There is no such thing as a gay wedding cake or a straight wedding cake. A cake is an inanimate object without gender or sexual orientation. The difference is the sexual orientation of the customers and it is not legal to base a decision to refuse to sell a product on that difference.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
NAMBLA raises some legitimate questions about the legal landscape, but for the wrong reasons. Society will eventually have to grapple with those questions, but that doesn’t mean NAMBLA will ever be accepted.
Click to expand...
Homosexuals who seek public acceptance have understandable difficulty admitting that, because of the broad sweep of the Supreme Court decision, NAMBLA’s objectives were legitimized. Ergo, the reluctance to refer to NAMBLA’s members as homosexuals.

For both homosexuals in general and the liberal media, the preferred PC term for NAMBLA is “pedophilia” because the term’s original medical definition has been altered; it has been given a PC connotation allowing even some orthodox Catholics to innocently use “pedophilia” rather than homosexualism .

NAMBLA’s now-legalized cause is pederasty; the homosexual relationship between an adult male and an adolescent male. Five Justices, in their haste to once again reinterpret the US Constitution, have made pederasty legal in America, so long as the involved young male is of a legal age to marry. That age, depending on the particular state and circumstances, can be as low as 14.

Two of the five Justices, Ginsburg and Kagan, have officiated at homosexual “marriages”, yet would not recuse themselves from this case. Further, Justice Ginsburg’s sincerely-held well-known militantism concerning sex, gender, age of consent, etc. is so far Left that she is an embarrassment to decency and American culture. It is impossible that this former ACLU attorney missed the fact that her majority opinion would legalize NAMBLA’s cause.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
The difference is the sexual orientation of the customers and it is not legal to base a decision to refuse to sell a product on that difference.
Click to expand...
This is a false statement. The difference is not the sexual orientation of the customers. These businesses regularly served gay customers. The difference is the fact that a Christian is being asked to provide services for a gay wedding; it is a violation of his conscience to create and sell goods and services for an end that is prohibited by his faith.
 
DrTaffy said:
That is like saying that it is not discrimination to only allow people to ride in the back of the bus. Refusing only some service is still discrimination.
Click to expand...
No, it isn’t. Jim Crow laws forbid businesses from serving blacks. This law forces businesses to serve gay people. There is a difference.
 
KSU said:
Homosexuals who seek public acceptance have understandable difficulty admitting that, because of the broad sweep of the Supreme Court decision, NAMBLA’s objectives were legitimized. Ergo, the reluctance to refer to NAMBLA’s members as homosexuals.

For both homosexuals in general and the liberal media, the preferred PC term for NAMBLA is “pedophilia” because the term’s original medical definition has been altered; it has been given a PC connotation allowing even some orthodox Catholics to innocently use “pedophilia” rather than homosexualism .

NAMBLA’s now-legalized cause is pederasty; the homosexual relationship between an adult male and an adolescent male. Five Justices, in their haste to once again reinterpret the US Constitution, have made pederasty legal in America, so long as the involved young male is of a legal age to marry. That age, depending on the particular state and circumstances, can be as low as 14.

Two of the five Justices, Ginsburg and Kagan, have officiated at homosexual “marriages”, yet would not recuse themselves from this case. Further, Justice Ginsburg’s sincerely-held well-known militantism concerning sex, gender, age of consent, etc. is so far Left that she is an embarrassment to decency and American culture. It is impossible that this former ACLU attorney missed the fact that her majority opinion would legalize NAMBLA’s cause.
Click to expand...
Your post highlights some common and profound knowledge gaps both in terms of law and human sexual orientation, but we’ll start with law. The issue of whether or not marriage is a fundamental right was decided in Loving v. Virginia. In this case, the Supreme Court did what it has always done when addressing legal questions pertaining to fundamental rights. It only assessed whether or not the State has a compelling interest in narrowing the people’s application of that right in the case of same-sex couples and found that the State had none. That does not mean it would find the same to be true in terms of number, age, or any other attribute.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
It only assessed whether or not the State has a compelling interest in narrowing the people’s application of that right in the case of same-sex couples and found that the State had none. That does not mean it would find the same to be true in terms of number, age, or any other attribute.
Click to expand...
I think that many are concerned that there is now, in fact, no compelling interest in narrowing the people’s application of that right to any number of different scenarios. The government is now in our bedroom - in a good way this time of course.
 
FollowChrist34 said:
I think that many are concerned that there is now, in fact, no compelling interest in narrowing the people’s application of that right to any number of different scenarios. The government is now in our bedroom - in a good way this time of course.
Click to expand...
Those concerns aren’t based in any legal reality. The only argument the State could really make in this case was an appeal to tradition, which is not a legal argument. Nothing else it argued held up to scrutiny. There are all sorts of legal arguments that can constitute compelling interest when it comes to the other scenarios mentioned.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
Those concerns aren’t based in any legal reality. The only argument the State could really make in this case was an appeal to tradition, which is not a legal argument. Nothing else it argued held up to scrutiny. There are all sorts of legal arguments that can constitute compelling interest when it comes to the other scenarios mentioned.
Click to expand...
For the Nazis, extermination of the Jews was a “legal reality.” It was for the good of the State, a compelling interest. Legal reality is completely arbitrary and subject to the will of those in power. In my view, this decision was 100% against the interests of society and the common good - not just “tradition”. That is what the State should have appealed to. The interests of children and social order have been completely overlooked.
 
FollowChrist34 said:
For the Nazis, extermination of the Jews was a “legal reality.” It was for the good of the State, a compelling interest. Legal reality is completely arbitrary and subject to the will of those in power. In my view, this decision was 100% against the interests of society and the common good - not just “tradition”. That is what the State should have appealed to. The interests of children and social order have been completely overlooked.
Click to expand...
For the Nazis, extermination of the Jews was for “the interests of children and social order”, and for “the interests of society and the common good”.

This is why Godwins are utterly meaningless as a debate tool.
 
Darryl_Revok said:
For the Nazis, extermination of the Jews was for “the interests of children and social order”, and for “the interests of society and the common good”.

This is why Godwins are utterly meaningless as a debate tool.
Click to expand...
Love wins. That is all that really matters.
 
Darryl_Revok said:
This is why Godwins are utterly meaningless as a debate tool.
Click to expand...
How do you mean? It exactly demonstrates the point that statements like “legal reality” are arbitrary exercises of power. Just as the Nazis acted arbitrarily, the USSC acted arbitrarily. At least with appeals to tradition there is something outside of oneself to based an opinion upon. With the majority ruling, they appealed only to themselves.
 
Suudy said:
How do you mean? It exactly demonstrates the point that statements like “legal reality” are arbitrary exercises of power. Just as the Nazis acted arbitrarily, the USSC acted arbitrarily. At least with appeals to tradition there is something outside of oneself to based an opinion upon. With the majority ruling, they appealed only to themselves.
Click to expand...
The entirety of American history is full of arbitrary exercises of power; why go to the Nazis to find an example? Going Godwin is unnecessary, intellectually dishonest, and can easily be thrown back in the arguers face.

For example, you bring up “appeals to tradition”; that was the entire basis of the Nazi social order: Kinder, Küche, Kirche. Laws were passed to promote marriage, childbirth, and the family. What does this prove? About as much as the above example.
 
FollowChrist34 said:
Love wins. That is all that really matters.
Click to expand...
The only way I see to get rid of this pesky “love” thing in re: marriage is to re-monetize the institution. Historical marriage, including in the Bible, was originally a glorified property transfer, and the only way to get back to its roots is to resurrect traditions like the bride price and the dowry.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
For the most part and marrying for love has always been desired.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that is true for cultures where the parents arrange the marriage. Marriages for love in western and Catholic culture don’t hold up very well with Catholic annulment rates going as high as 50,000 per year in the USA. But in non-Catholic cultures where the parents arrange the marriage, the stability of the family is much higher.
 
Tomdstone said:
I don’t think that is true for cultures where the parents arrange the marriage. Marriages for love in western and Catholic culture don’t hold up very well with Catholic annulment rates going as high as 50,000 per year in the USA. But in non-Catholic cultures where the parents arrange the marriage, the stability of the family is much higher.
Click to expand...
I don’t think the people doing the marrying would agree that it isn’t desired, but you are correct that it isn’t always possible in such cultures. This is particularly true in Africa, India, and parts of Asia where arranged marriages are still common with the financial motives being the driver. The stability is higher only because these are places where male chauvinism reigns supreme in practice if not law and women are still viewed as mere objects with little to no recourse if the marriage is a bad one. They have very little choice but to endure them as best they can. Does the West want to return to this time in our history when women only existed to be ruled by and for the pleasure of men?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top