Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
56 pages and it all boils down to bake the damn cake, and if you can't, close up and go serve your God in a real way instead of pretending to and standing on your moral high-ground while making a profit.The court in AZ decided a similar case. This is a different court.
The minds of the courts on this are clear, regardless of a decision here or there going one way or another. This fight is over and done with. Equality and decency won...
I hope you're right and the Colorado Appeals Court rules the same way as the AZ did.
Well, I wasn't trying to shut you down. Ibentoken .... guilty (-: I dunno. PA laws don't really rile me up. Gays shouldn't be fired by private companies for being gays. There's a reason for them. As for the baker ... I posted to Marty that the baker isn't practicing his faith baking the cakes; rather, he's serving mammon. Jesus was very explicit that you cannot serve mammon and God simultaneously. If the baker wants to take whatever profit he got on the cake and give it away, then he's taken no benefit, or mammon, for the gay couple's cake. Nor has he anything to do with their marriage. In short, I just don't see the justified outrage in the baker. Sanctimonious. Hypocritical in not facing his own sins of pride and prejudice
This is strictly my personal reflection. I've seen the Episcopal church put more effort into gay marriage than kids in prostitution. Some people work three jobs, but that's been going on forever. Still, free daycare ....
So, while I've no empathy for the baker, it seems to me that this whole issue has given Christians, liberal and not liberal, some room to hide from other issues. There's something of a backlash among some younger folks in groups like the Baptists who see this "gay thing" as a bit of diversion.
As for the PA thing .... in terms of taking away freedoms, I'm more concerned with the economy.
I'm more concerned with our descent into corporatism.
Historians talk about how sometimes the really big shifts in societies are invisible to the people in the midst of them, often even to those implementing them. I find the speed with which we've dispensed with the core principles of equal protection and individual rights, replacing them with class-based privileges and power sharing, to be far more disturbing that a lagging economy.
Well yeah. That's the thing. I don't see how a law saying everyone gets treated the same is really end of freedoms. Fining the baker for being a boor strikes me as not much more civil that the baker's boorish behavior. But, I'm not climbing up on a cross over it. (-:
As for the economy, that is the thing. Dave Camp gave his closing salvo, arguing for reducing rates across the board by elimintating tax breaks, or corporatism. What gets attention? The PA laws. Camp got slammed by the left and right.
I'd piss and crap in the cake batter.
I'd piss and crap in the cake batter.
Why am I not surprised?
If a retailer did that he would be put out of business and put in jail.
If a baker did that to me, likely I'd be in jail for assault too.
If he offers wedding cakes as a business to the public, he cannot pick and choose which group he serves or not serves....same applies if he were to say he cannot design a cake for an interracial couple....or he refuses to design a cake for an interfaith couple.
Nope. You can't force an American citizen to violate their religious beliefs. Period. They will change the law.
Elane Photography took their case all the way to the Supreme Court, the decision was upheld by the New Mexico Supreme Court and the SCOTUS rejected and appeal writ.
(And again, no one is "forced" to do anything. You voluntarily open a business, no one is forced to. You voluntarily decide on what goods and services to offer, no one is forced to. If you don't want to shoot wedding photographs for same-sex couples, don't offer wedding services. If you don't want to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, don't offer wedding cakes.)
>>>>
I'm more concerned with our descent into corporatism.
Historians talk about how sometimes the really big shifts in societies are invisible to the people in the midst of them, often even to those implementing them. I find the speed with which we've dispensed with the core principles of equal protection and individual rights, replacing them with class-based privileges and power sharing, to be far more disturbing that a lagging economy.
Well yeah. That's the thing. I don't see how a law saying everyone gets treated the same is really end of freedoms. Fining the baker for being a boor strikes me as not much more civil that the baker's boorish behavior. But, I'm not climbing up on a cross over it. (-:
As for the economy, that is the thing. Dave Camp gave his closing salvo, arguing for reducing rates across the board by elimintating tax breaks, or corporatism. What gets attention? The PA laws. Camp got slammed by the left and right.
It's an end of freedoms because you don't have a right to be "treated the same" by individuals, and individuals have the right to be assholes if they want. If you really can't see a limitation on freedom in passing a law that says, "THIS is the accepted way that human beings can think and behave, and anything else will be punished by the government", simply because the prohibited behavior is something you don't personally like, then you don't understand the concept of freedom at all.
I addressed that point in my quote that you included in your question.
Ummm - How does a baker violating Colordao law show that the Heartland of Atlanta Motel 50-years ago was required by Georgia State Law not to rent rooms to non-white people?
Common, you are claiming that the wide spread discrimination against coloreds was required by State law - where was the Heartland Motel required under the law to rent to whites only?
>>>>
I would note that one key difference here (and one that I brought up earlier but was not engaged on) is the simple fact that the cited case covered a discrimination that was massive, widespread and debilitating. The national law was conceived because no other reasonable approach was envisioned at that time. The nation was dealing with a very widespread belief that blacks were less than whites. This affected every faucet of their lives.
On the flipside, gays are ‘struggling’ with the dozen bakeries and photographers across the country that done want to take part in their weddings. The problem is not widespread, pervasive or limiting in any way shape or form. NONE of the gays in question were found lacking anything by this discrimination.
There is no need for such law in this case – society is taking care of the issue. As has already been pointed out, gays are socially accepted. The idea that we need to apply laws to limit the freedoms of 300 million Americans to achieve what a boycott would is absolutely asinine and the acceptance of it completely wrong. We do NOT need to create another protected class to address the tiny speck of people acting like fools.
If thats true, then the only possible conclusion is that polygamy, bigamy, and all other forms of 'marriage' are also legal. How can you justify denying marriage equality to these other minority groups? Its a serious question.
It's not the only possible conclusion, it's the slippery slope fallacy question.
If you believe that the state has no compelling interest in prevent polygamist and "all other forms" (be more specific), then the onus is on you to challenge the courts. Good luck.
Nope, its a legal reality. Once gay marriage is ruled legal then there is no possible legal defence that can be brought to deny polygamy and bigamy and everything else.
If discrimination and equality are the reasons for allowing gay marriage, then the precedent is established and all forms of marriage must be allowed. Its not a slippery slope, its a legal reality.
I'd piss and crap in the cake batter.
Why am I not surprised?
If a retailer did that he would be put out of business and put in jail.
If a baker did that to me, likely I'd be in jail for assault too.
No gay was refused service at that bakery. They were refused the personal labor of the baker.
Slavery is still illegal isn't it?
I'm more concerned with our descent into corporatism.
Historians talk about how sometimes the really big shifts in societies are invisible to the people in the midst of them, often even to those implementing them. I find the speed with which we've dispensed with the core principles of equal protection and individual rights, replacing them with class-based privileges and power sharing, to be far more disturbing that a lagging economy.
Well yeah. That's the thing. I don't see how a law saying everyone gets treated the same is really end of freedoms. Fining the baker for being a boor strikes me as not much more civil that the baker's boorish behavior. But, I'm not climbing up on a cross over it. (-:
As for the economy, that is the thing. Dave Camp gave his closing salvo, arguing for reducing rates across the board by elimintating tax breaks, or corporatism. What gets attention? The PA laws. Camp got slammed by the left and right.
It's an end of freedoms because you don't have a right to be "treated the same" by individuals, and individuals have the right to be assholes if they want. If you really can't see a limitation on freedom in passing a law that says, "THIS is the accepted way that human beings can think and behave, and anything else will be punished by the government", simply because the prohibited behavior is something you don't personally like, then you don't understand the concept of freedom at all.
Well yeah. That's the thing. I don't see how a law saying everyone gets treated the same is really end of freedoms. Fining the baker for being a boor strikes me as not much more civil that the baker's boorish behavior. But, I'm not climbing up on a cross over it. (-:
As for the economy, that is the thing. Dave Camp gave his closing salvo, arguing for reducing rates across the board by elimintating tax breaks, or corporatism. What gets attention? The PA laws. Camp got slammed by the left and right.
It's an end of freedoms because you don't have a right to be "treated the same" by individuals, and individuals have the right to be assholes if they want. If you really can't see a limitation on freedom in passing a law that says, "THIS is the accepted way that human beings can think and behave, and anything else will be punished by the government", simply because the prohibited behavior is something you don't personally like, then you don't understand the concept of freedom at all.
That's what I find most disturbing about the way the political alignments and convictions have shifted. It wasn't that long ago, liberals were on the front line standing up for people who were bullied for their unpopular opinions or lifestyles. Gays themselves were victims of laws that presumed to enforce social mores on fringe groups. I'm surprised more people don't see the hypocrisy in all this.
It's not the only possible conclusion, it's the slippery slope fallacy question.
If you believe that the state has no compelling interest in prevent polygamist and "all other forms" (be more specific), then the onus is on you to challenge the courts. Good luck.
Nope, its a legal reality. Once gay marriage is ruled legal then there is no possible legal defence that can be brought to deny polygamy and bigamy and everything else.
If discrimination and equality are the reasons for allowing gay marriage, then the precedent is established and all forms of marriage must be allowed. Its not a slippery slope, its a legal reality.
No, not entirely. Some forms yes but not all those restrictions rely on the same equal access laws.
For instance, bestiality or marriage to an inanimate object has no resemblance here as the other party must have not only the ability to enter contract but also the ability to consent. Ergo, marriage under the age of consent and to other things that cannot give consent will not occur.
Further, bigamy and polygamy are also not an equal access issues. Current marriage mechanics simply are unworkable in a polygamous manner. You are also not denied the right to marry whomever you choose. That right is retained. You simply cannot do this multiple times without voiding the previous contract and so this, again, has no real tangent to gay marriage.
The only real change I can see occurring is that incestuous relationships might very well be able to challenge the laws against them marrying. Honestly, I could care less as I think the majority of people would agree.
Nope, its a legal reality. Once gay marriage is ruled legal then there is no possible legal defence that can be brought to deny polygamy and bigamy and everything else.
If discrimination and equality are the reasons for allowing gay marriage, then the precedent is established and all forms of marriage must be allowed. Its not a slippery slope, its a legal reality.
No, not entirely. Some forms yes but not all those restrictions rely on the same equal access laws.
For instance, bestiality or marriage to an inanimate object has no resemblance here as the other party must have not only the ability to enter contract but also the ability to consent. Ergo, marriage under the age of consent and to other things that cannot give consent will not occur.
Further, bigamy and polygamy are also not an equal access issues. Current marriage mechanics simply are unworkable in a polygamous manner. You are also not denied the right to marry whomever you choose. That right is retained. You simply cannot do this multiple times without voiding the previous contract and so this, again, has no real tangent to gay marriage.
The only real change I can see occurring is that incestuous relationships might very well be able to challenge the laws against them marrying. Honestly, I could care less as I think the majority of people would agree.
The goal of any society should be the protection of the members of that society from danger from without and dangers of degradation from within.
But, I think you missed my legal point. If in fact gay marriage is allowed based on equal protection of a minority, then there is no defense to prevent the minority that believes in bigamy or polygamy from marrying. The exact same legal argument would apply to them. i.e. discrimination based on sexual orientation, or who they love.
Minimize this risk if you choose, but its real.
No, not entirely. Some forms yes but not all those restrictions rely on the same equal access laws.
For instance, bestiality or marriage to an inanimate object has no resemblance here as the other party must have not only the ability to enter contract but also the ability to consent. Ergo, marriage under the age of consent and to other things that cannot give consent will not occur.
Further, bigamy and polygamy are also not an equal access issues. Current marriage mechanics simply are unworkable in a polygamous manner. You are also not denied the right to marry whomever you choose. That right is retained. You simply cannot do this multiple times without voiding the previous contract and so this, again, has no real tangent to gay marriage.
The only real change I can see occurring is that incestuous relationships might very well be able to challenge the laws against them marrying. Honestly, I could care less as I think the majority of people would agree.
The goal of any society should be the protection of the members of that society from danger from without and dangers of degradation from within.
But, I think you missed my legal point. If in fact gay marriage is allowed based on equal protection of a minority, then there is no defense to prevent the minority that believes in bigamy or polygamy from marrying. The exact same legal argument would apply to them. i.e. discrimination based on sexual orientation, or who they love.
Minimize this risk if you choose, but its real.
I can only hope so. I, personally, believe that government has no place in marriage anyway and should eliminate the entire concept. You can enter into contract with anyone that you please and those contracts can cover everything that marriage does (aside from government social engineering with giveaways) but leave marriage for religion where it belongs.
Nope, its a legal reality. Once gay marriage is ruled legal then there is no possible legal defence that can be brought to deny polygamy and bigamy and everything else.
If discrimination and equality are the reasons for allowing gay marriage, then the precedent is established and all forms of marriage must be allowed. Its not a slippery slope, its a legal reality.
No, not entirely. Some forms yes but not all those restrictions rely on the same equal access laws.
For instance, bestiality or marriage to an inanimate object has no resemblance here as the other party must have not only the ability to enter contract but also the ability to consent. Ergo, marriage under the age of consent and to other things that cannot give consent will not occur.
Further, bigamy and polygamy are also not an equal access issues. Current marriage mechanics simply are unworkable in a polygamous manner. You are also not denied the right to marry whomever you choose. That right is retained. You simply cannot do this multiple times without voiding the previous contract and so this, again, has no real tangent to gay marriage.
The only real change I can see occurring is that incestuous relationships might very well be able to challenge the laws against them marrying. Honestly, I could care less as I think the majority of people would agree.
The goal of any society should be the protection of the members of that society from danger from without and dangers of degradation from within.
But, I think you missed my legal point. If in fact gay marriage is allowed based on equal protection of a minority, then there is no defense to prevent the minority that believes in bigamy or polygamy from marrying. The exact same legal argument would apply to them. i.e. discrimination based on sexual orientation, or who they love.
Minimize this risk if you choose, but its real.
No, not entirely. Some forms yes but not all those restrictions rely on the same equal access laws.
For instance, bestiality or marriage to an inanimate object has no resemblance here as the other party must have not only the ability to enter contract but also the ability to consent. Ergo, marriage under the age of consent and to other things that cannot give consent will not occur.
Further, bigamy and polygamy are also not an equal access issues. Current marriage mechanics simply are unworkable in a polygamous manner. You are also not denied the right to marry whomever you choose. That right is retained. You simply cannot do this multiple times without voiding the previous contract and so this, again, has no real tangent to gay marriage.
The only real change I can see occurring is that incestuous relationships might very well be able to challenge the laws against them marrying. Honestly, I could care less as I think the majority of people would agree.
The goal of any society should be the protection of the members of that society from danger from without and dangers of degradation from within.
But, I think you missed my legal point. If in fact gay marriage is allowed based on equal protection of a minority, then there is no defense to prevent the minority that believes in bigamy or polygamy from marrying. The exact same legal argument would apply to them. i.e. discrimination based on sexual orientation, or who they love.
Minimize this risk if you choose, but its real.
Not quite true. There are a number of arguments against polygamy. Polygamy refers only to one man marrying multiple women, to be contrasted with polyandry in which the woman marries multiple husbands. Polygamy includes 1:N wives only, polyandry includes 1:N husbands only - while bigamy could theoretically include N:N wives and husbands.
There are many arguments against bigamy from a historical perspective that if managed properly would no longer be a large issue.
- 1. In the past such societies were almost exclusively polygamous and structured in such a way as to be abusive to women. Women were viewed almost as property and were expected to be subservient to the man.
- 2. It was not uncommon for older men to exercise political (or religious) "power" over community such that very young women were forced into marriages with these older men (often much older) and left with no means of escape from the community. (i.e. statutory rape with no means of escape.)
- 3. High concentrations of polygamous marriages tends to skew the natural ratios of the available male/females in a given population. If you have one man marrying multiple women, those women are effectively removed from the - ah - market so to speak. Now you have an increased number of males while at the same time having a shortage of available females. Leading to problems with how to deal with the males who were often excluded from the community.
Now, these reasons may not be as valid today in a modern western civilization society - although many of these problems might still be applicable to African and Middle-Eastern societies. Much larger and more mobile populations also reduces the impact of past wrongs which occurred in isolated enclaves.
However from a modern perspective there are still valid reasons against legalized bigamy.
Legal View: There is no legal framework to deal with partners in a Civil Marriage that exceeds two persons and the issues that are already complex enough dealing with two individuals and possibly children let alone increasing those issues exponentially with each additional spouse.
In each bigamous marriage, there would be at a minimum three legally intertwined status:
A married to B,
A married to C, and
B married to C.
Add a fourth spouse and you get:
A married to B
A married to C
A married to D
B married to C
B married to D
C married to D
Add a fifth spouse and you get:
A married to B
A married to C
A married to D
A married to E
B married to C
B married to D
B married to E
C married to D
C married to E
E married to D
Add another, etc...
So you have issues with property on who owns what, what was brought into the marriage when. If C decides he/she no longer wants to be part of the plural marriage to what extent is he/she awarded property from A, B, D, and E.
You have issues also with children. Who are the parents. The biological parents or are all adults in a plural marriage equally parents. In the event of a divorce who gets child custody? Visitation? Child support? etc...
When the discussion is about marriage between two consenting adults the current legal system will support it because laws, courts, etc... are geared toward dealing with the same situations. Linear increases in the number of spouses causes an exponential increase on the courts in dealing with those issues.
So there is a secular reason to be leery of bigamy as a government recognized entity that has nothing to do with religion or morality.
>>>>
The goal of any society should be the protection of the members of that society from danger from without and dangers of degradation from within.
But, I think you missed my legal point. If in fact gay marriage is allowed based on equal protection of a minority, then there is no defense to prevent the minority that believes in bigamy or polygamy from marrying. The exact same legal argument would apply to them. i.e. discrimination based on sexual orientation, or who they love.
Minimize this risk if you choose, but its real.
Not quite true. There are a number of arguments against polygamy. Polygamy refers only to one man marrying multiple women, to be contrasted with polyandry in which the woman marries multiple husbands. Polygamy includes 1:N wives only, polyandry includes 1:N husbands only - while bigamy could theoretically include N:N wives and husbands.
There are many arguments against bigamy from a historical perspective that if managed properly would no longer be a large issue.
- 1. In the past such societies were almost exclusively polygamous and structured in such a way as to be abusive to women. Women were viewed almost as property and were expected to be subservient to the man.
- 2. It was not uncommon for older men to exercise political (or religious) "power" over community such that very young women were forced into marriages with these older men (often much older) and left with no means of escape from the community. (i.e. statutory rape with no means of escape.)
- 3. High concentrations of polygamous marriages tends to skew the natural ratios of the available male/females in a given population. If you have one man marrying multiple women, those women are effectively removed from the - ah - market so to speak. Now you have an increased number of males while at the same time having a shortage of available females. Leading to problems with how to deal with the males who were often excluded from the community.
Now, these reasons may not be as valid today in a modern western civilization society - although many of these problems might still be applicable to African and Middle-Eastern societies. Much larger and more mobile populations also reduces the impact of past wrongs which occurred in isolated enclaves.
However from a modern perspective there are still valid reasons against legalized bigamy.
Legal View: There is no legal framework to deal with partners in a Civil Marriage that exceeds two persons and the issues that are already complex enough dealing with two individuals and possibly children let alone increasing those issues exponentially with each additional spouse.
In each bigamous marriage, there would be at a minimum three legally intertwined status:
A married to B,
A married to C, and
B married to C.
Add a fourth spouse and you get:
A married to B
A married to C
A married to D
B married to C
B married to D
C married to D
Add a fifth spouse and you get:
A married to B
A married to C
A married to D
A married to E
B married to C
B married to D
B married to E
C married to D
C married to E
E married to D
Add another, etc...
So you have issues with property on who owns what, what was brought into the marriage when. If C decides he/she no longer wants to be part of the plural marriage to what extent is he/she awarded property from A, B, D, and E.
You have issues also with children. Who are the parents. The biological parents or are all adults in a plural marriage equally parents. In the event of a divorce who gets child custody? Visitation? Child support? etc...
When the discussion is about marriage between two consenting adults the current legal system will support it because laws, courts, etc... are geared toward dealing with the same situations. Linear increases in the number of spouses causes an exponential increase on the courts in dealing with those issues.
So there is a secular reason to be leery of bigamy as a government recognized entity that has nothing to do with religion or morality.
>>>>
you are making my point. thanks
you are citing societal taboos as the defense against polygamy and bigamy.
Not quite true. There are a number of arguments against polygamy. Polygamy refers only to one man marrying multiple women, to be contrasted with polyandry in which the woman marries multiple husbands. Polygamy includes 1:N wives only, polyandry includes 1:N husbands only - while bigamy could theoretically include N:N wives and husbands.
There are many arguments against bigamy from a historical perspective that if managed properly would no longer be a large issue.
- 1. In the past such societies were almost exclusively polygamous and structured in such a way as to be abusive to women. Women were viewed almost as property and were expected to be subservient to the man.
- 2. It was not uncommon for older men to exercise political (or religious) "power" over community such that very young women were forced into marriages with these older men (often much older) and left with no means of escape from the community. (i.e. statutory rape with no means of escape.)
- 3. High concentrations of polygamous marriages tends to skew the natural ratios of the available male/females in a given population. If you have one man marrying multiple women, those women are effectively removed from the - ah - market so to speak. Now you have an increased number of males while at the same time having a shortage of available females. Leading to problems with how to deal with the males who were often excluded from the community.
Now, these reasons may not be as valid today in a modern western civilization society - although many of these problems might still be applicable to African and Middle-Eastern societies. Much larger and more mobile populations also reduces the impact of past wrongs which occurred in isolated enclaves.
However from a modern perspective there are still valid reasons against legalized bigamy.
Legal View: There is no legal framework to deal with partners in a Civil Marriage that exceeds two persons and the issues that are already complex enough dealing with two individuals and possibly children let alone increasing those issues exponentially with each additional spouse.
In each bigamous marriage, there would be at a minimum three legally intertwined status:
A married to B,
A married to C, and
B married to C.
Add a fourth spouse and you get:
A married to B
A married to C
A married to D
B married to C
B married to D
C married to D
Add a fifth spouse and you get:
A married to B
A married to C
A married to D
A married to E
B married to C
B married to D
B married to E
C married to D
C married to E
E married to D
Add another, etc...
So you have issues with property on who owns what, what was brought into the marriage when. If C decides he/she no longer wants to be part of the plural marriage to what extent is he/she awarded property from A, B, D, and E.
You have issues also with children. Who are the parents. The biological parents or are all adults in a plural marriage equally parents. In the event of a divorce who gets child custody? Visitation? Child support? etc...
When the discussion is about marriage between two consenting adults the current legal system will support it because laws, courts, etc... are geared toward dealing with the same situations. Linear increases in the number of spouses causes an exponential increase on the courts in dealing with those issues.
So there is a secular reason to be leery of bigamy as a government recognized entity that has nothing to do with religion or morality.
>>>>
you are making my point. thanks
No I'm not, I countered your legal view.
you are citing societal taboos as the defense against polygamy and bigamy.
Actually I said quite the opposite: "Now, these reasons may not be as valid today in a modern western civilization..."
Then went on to point out that SSCM changes nothing in regards to how marriage works when it extablishes a family relationship between two people and that there was a compelling government interest in how family law would function under an N:N relationship of males to females in a Civil Marriage.
You apparently ignored or didn't understand the thrust of the post.
>>>>
