Freedom Isn’t a Zero-Sum Game - If Gays Have More Rights, Christians Don't Have Fewer

[Bush92]

Like the California voters who felt marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman. What about their rights?

 

[Edgetho]

No, I'm not conflating standards. Gays and lesbians want equal access to civil marriage. Marriage being a fundamental right cannot be denied gays because you don't think their partnerships are equal, because gays are icky or because your bible tells you so. There must be a societal harm in allowing gays to civilly marry each other. None can be found so courts are finding in favor of gays having access to a fundamental right.

Public Accommodation laws, which have been in effect since the 60s, have zero to do with civil marriage. They are laws passed by legislators or people's initiatives and they have been challenged more than once to the SCOTUS. You're free to challenge them again. Until such a time, these laws are in effect and a business can follow them or suffer the consequences. Where is my conflated standard?

No it isn't. That's just simply a gigantic lie.

Marriage is not a right. Not even close to being a right, much less a 'fundamental' right

It is a State approved institution between two people that the State recognizes as being beneficial to the State.

A 'right'?

This is why we dislike you people so much; you lie. Then you lie to cover a lie.

Only an idiot believes marriage is a right.

Am I against gays getting 'married'?

No. In fact, I'm all for it. Might clean up the gene pool a little bit.

Can you imagine one of these two procreating? [shudder]

MI Gay Couple Starts Gofundme Account To Raise $10K For Gay Marriage Legal Fund After Success Of Memories Pizza…


Time for their supporter to pay up or shut up.

Via Detroit FREEP

Supporters of two Hazel Park nurses fighting Michigan’s same-sex marriage ban in the U.S. Supreme Court are using the example of a crowdfunding campaign on behalf of a pizzeria in Indiana criticized as anti-gay to raise funds for the effort.

“Pizza Lovers for Marriage Equality” is the name of the gofundme.com campaign launched by Lori Pimlott of Royal Oak in the hopes of raising $10,000 toward helping to defray the costs of the case brought by April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse against the state’s 2004 same-sex marriage ban.

“If a(n) anti gay marriage pizzeria in Indiana can make almost a million dollars … trying to fool us into thinking the majority of US citizens are against gay marriage let’s show the country that the majority of this country DOES support Marriage Equality,” Pimlott’s website says.[…]

“Pizza Lovers for Marriage Equality” asks supporters to donate a minimum of $5 “or the average cost of a pizza,” with all the proceeds going to the National Marriage Challenge, the nonprofit organization set up to help pay the costs of the DeBoer-Rowse case.

As of this morning, it had raised slightly more than $3,000 toward its goal.

 

[Edgetho]

Like the California voters who felt marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman. What about their rights?

Fool.

Only dimocrap scum have rights. Not anybody else, especially filthy Christians

 

[Seawytch]

No, I'm going with the reasonable person and no societal harm standard. Single people aren't denied the benefits of marriage any more than I'm denied the benefits of an airplane owners tax deduction.

and you throw that standard out the window when you go after bakers who don't want to bake cakes for you. Got it.

Ah, now we're conflating issues. Public Accommodation and civil marriage are unrelated. Yes, we know you don't like PA laws. That does not change their existence nor does it change that they have been found to be Constitutional. The Federal PA law at that. PA laws that protect gays are passed at the local level...you know, states rights kinds stuff ya'll usually go for.

Actually you are conflating standards to suit your own interest, but after a few years on this message board, I am not surprised by that.

And again, "Constitutional" does not mean right. Plessey V Furgeson was constitutional, do you think it was right? Citizens united means massive outside spending on elections is constitutional, do you think that is right?

No, I'm not conflating standards. Gays and lesbians want equal access to civil marriage. Marriage being a fundamental right cannot be denied gays because you don't think their partnerships are equal, because gays are icky or because your bible tells you so. There must be a societal harm in allowing gays to civilly marry each other. None can be found so courts are finding in favor of gays having access to a fundamental right.

Public Accommodation laws, which have been in effect since the 60s, have zero to do with civil marriage. They are laws passed by legislators or people's initiatives and they have been challenged more than once to the SCOTUS. You're free to challenge them again. Until such a time, these laws are in effect and a business can follow them or suffer the consequences. Where is my conflated standard?

Your side is making them the same issue, by your litigious methods of not getting equality, but acceptance.

And if you don't see the conflict created in your arguments, I can't help you.

You can't because there is no conflict. I challenge you to challenge PA laws. Go ahead, best of luck, wear your galoshes, etc.

The societal harm isn't from the marriages being allowed, its in the use of the courts to force issues on States that don't want to go along with it on the concept of "I want it, so I will make up some bullcrap to let me get it" And don't go running to Loving because that ruling was constructed on Race, not sex or sexuality. It also dealt with criminality and a couple that was married in another jurisdiction, not wanting to get married.

Sorry, your Walmart parking lot temper tantrum about gays using the system set up to redress grievances does not amount to societal harm.

Nothing is being "made up" regarding gays fighting for (and winning) their equal rights. Gays are winning based on the merits of their cases and the weakness of anti gay laws. See, these laws were passed based solely on animus towards gay people. There is no valid reason (outside icky, bible, hate) to keep gays from marrying...hence the anti gay laws losing.

If you want the courts to force a state that doesn't perform SSM to recognize another State's legal, legislatively mandated SSM, then I see the standing vis a vis full faith and credit.

And that is the least ruling we will get out of the SCOTUS...It seems likely that we'll get more, but we will at least get the rest of DOMA struck down...which is fine by me.

 

[Seawytch]

Like the California voters who felt marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman. What about their rights?

You mean like Chicago citizens who felt that handguns should be illegal? Laws that violate the US Constitution get struck down.

 

[Seawytch]

No, I'm not conflating standards. Gays and lesbians want equal access to civil marriage. Marriage being a fundamental right cannot be denied gays because you don't think their partnerships are equal, because gays are icky or because your bible tells you so. There must be a societal harm in allowing gays to civilly marry each other. None can be found so courts are finding in favor of gays having access to a fundamental right.

Public Accommodation laws, which have been in effect since the 60s, have zero to do with civil marriage. They are laws passed by legislators or people's initiatives and they have been challenged more than once to the SCOTUS. You're free to challenge them again. Until such a time, these laws are in effect and a business can follow them or suffer the consequences. Where is my conflated standard?

No it isn't. That's just simply a gigantic lie.

Marriage is not a right. Not even close to being a right, much less a 'fundamental' right

It is a State approved institution between two people that the State recognizes as being beneficial to the State.

A 'right'?

This is why we dislike you people so much; you lie. Then you lie to cover a lie.

Only an idiot believes marriage is a right.

Then the Supreme Court have been "idiots" on no less than three (and as many as 14) occasions. Most notably in Loving v Virginia, Zablocki v Wisconsin and Turner v Safely.

 

[Seawytch]

Like the California voters who felt marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman. What about their rights?

Fool.

Only dimocrap scum have rights. Not anybody else, especially filthy Christians

Really? Can you name these rights than only Democrats have? How about some rights that gays have that Christians don't?

 

[Stephanie]

No, I'm not conflating standards. Gays and lesbians want equal access to civil marriage. Marriage being a fundamental right cannot be denied gays because you don't think their partnerships are equal, because gays are icky or because your bible tells you so. There must be a societal harm in allowing gays to civilly marry each other. None can be found so courts are finding in favor of gays having access to a fundamental right.

Public Accommodation laws, which have been in effect since the 60s, have zero to do with civil marriage. They are laws passed by legislators or people's initiatives and they have been challenged more than once to the SCOTUS. You're free to challenge them again. Until such a time, these laws are in effect and a business can follow them or suffer the consequences. Where is my conflated standard?

No it isn't. That's just simply a gigantic lie.

Marriage is not a right. Not even close to being a right, much less a 'fundamental' right

It is a State approved institution between two people that the State recognizes as being beneficial to the State.

A 'right'?

This is why we dislike you people so much; you lie. Then you lie to cover a lie.

Only an idiot believes marriage is a right.

Am I against gays getting 'married'?

No. In fact, I'm all for it. Might clean up the gene pool a little bit.

Can you imagine one of these two procreating? [shudder]

MI Gay Couple Starts Gofundme Account To Raise $10K For Gay Marriage Legal Fund After Success Of Memories Pizza…


Time for their supporter to pay up or shut up.

Via Detroit FREEP

Supporters of two Hazel Park nurses fighting Michigan’s same-sex marriage ban in the U.S. Supreme Court are using the example of a crowdfunding campaign on behalf of a pizzeria in Indiana criticized as anti-gay to raise funds for the effort.

“Pizza Lovers for Marriage Equality” is the name of the gofundme.com campaign launched by Lori Pimlott of Royal Oak in the hopes of raising $10,000 toward helping to defray the costs of the case brought by April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse against the state’s 2004 same-sex marriage ban.

“If a(n) anti gay marriage pizzeria in Indiana can make almost a million dollars … trying to fool us into thinking the majority of US citizens are against gay marriage let’s show the country that the majority of this country DOES support Marriage Equality,” Pimlott’s website says.[…]

“Pizza Lovers for Marriage Equality” asks supporters to donate a minimum of $5 “or the average cost of a pizza,” with all the proceeds going to the National Marriage Challenge, the nonprofit organization set up to help pay the costs of the DeBoer-Rowse case.

As of this morning, it had raised slightly more than $3,000 toward its goal.

If they didn't lie they can't push their agenda down our throats. they are so dishonest. Marriage is a fundamental right , how pathetic

 

[martybegan]

and you throw that standard out the window when you go after bakers who don't want to bake cakes for you. Got it.

Ah, now we're conflating issues. Public Accommodation and civil marriage are unrelated. Yes, we know you don't like PA laws. That does not change their existence nor does it change that they have been found to be Constitutional. The Federal PA law at that. PA laws that protect gays are passed at the local level...you know, states rights kinds stuff ya'll usually go for.

Actually you are conflating standards to suit your own interest, but after a few years on this message board, I am not surprised by that.

And again, "Constitutional" does not mean right. Plessey V Furgeson was constitutional, do you think it was right? Citizens united means massive outside spending on elections is constitutional, do you think that is right?

Right and wrong have nothing to do with legalities

When debating with Seawytch, apparently it does. If a court has ruled on it, and she agrees with it, she runs right to the old "its constitutional, so shut up" line of argument.

This is also the right thing to do. Yes, the court has made some bad decisions...they went on to reverse as society changed. Guess what? Society has changed.

I've never told you to shut up, I've told you to challenge the laws. Are you?

Told? No. Implied? Yes.
The right THING to do, and the RIGHT way to do it are two different things. Your side is going for the easy way, the forceful way, instead of the convincing your fellow citizens you seek to usurp their legislative rights via oligarchical courts.

 

[martybegan]

You have to assume gay marriage and hetero marriage are equal for that to work, and unless a State legislature changes the marriage contract to make that the case, a court has no right to force it on people.

Unless you go with a absolutist view of the 14th amendment, which in that case means we can't deny a marriage contract to anyone, even single people.

They are equal and single people aren't denied a marriage license...undivorced married people are, not single people.

No right is absolute. Owning a gun is a right, but it's not an absolute right.

a single person cannot marry themself, but if you go with your "because we want it" view of the 14th amendment, how do you justify denying them the benefits of marriage?

Marriage is a contract and by definition at least two parties must be involved.

So there is no example at all of a Contract with ones self?

How to Write a Contract With Yourself 9 Steps eHow

Not legally recognized so moot.

Unless you can get some court to agree with you on made up "rights"

 

[martybegan]

The entire religious argument is ridiculous because these pious people bake cakes and cater functions for all manner of sinners.

The only ones that seem to bother them are the gay sinners.

Exactly. Their "deeply held religious beliefs" begin and end at the gays. Not one baker, florist, photographer or pediatrician has ever refused to serve someone for the scores of other New Testament "sins".

The Complete List of New Testament Sins

Again, it's not your position or government's position to question how a person follows their moral compass, unless there is a compelling government interest, and a gay couple having to spend 15 more minutes finding another baker isn't a compelling government interest.

 

[Stephanie]

Like the California voters who felt marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman. What about their rights?

You mean like Chicago citizens who felt that handguns should be illegal? Laws that violate the US Constitution get struck down.

where did the citizens vote on that? those laws were passed on them

 

[paperview]

Just kills some of you folks, huh?

One of the Federal Circuit Court rulings - which reaffirms the Fundamental Right to marriage.

Hang on fellas....

"In 37 states - AL, AK, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, HI, ID, IA, IL, IN, KS, ME, MD, MA, MN, MT, NC, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, UT, VA, VT, WA, WV, WI, and WY - plus Washington, D.C. - same-sex couples have the freedom to marry once and for all. Additionally, same-sex couples can marry in some Missouri counties (based on a pro-marriage ruling now on appeal). Also in MO, the marriages of same-sex couples legally performed in other states are respected."

Freedom to Marry

...Same sex marriage will be recognized nationwide soon. Meanwhile, the kooky right will be left screaming and kicking ...waaaa!! No fun-da ...waaa...we're-mental!

 

[martybegan]

Just kills some of you folks, huh?

One of the Federal Circuit Court rulings - which reaffirms the Fundamental Right to marriage.

Hang on fellas....

"In 37 states - AL, AK, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, HI, ID, IA, IL, IN, KS, ME, MD, MA, MN, MT, NC, NH, NJ, NM, NV, NY, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, UT, VA, VT, WA, WV, WI, and WY - plus Washington, D.C. - same-sex couples have the freedom to marry once and for all. Additionally, same-sex couples can marry in some Missouri counties (based on a pro-marriage ruling now on appeal). Also in MO, the marriages of same-sex couples legally performed in other states are respected."

Freedom to Marry

...Same sex marriage will be recognized nationwide soon. Meanwhile, the kooky right will be left screaming and kicking ...waaaa!! No fun-da ...waaa...we're-mental!

"They conclude." Again kudos for being enthralled by the opinions of un-elected lawyers. Your desire for oligarchy is noted.

And considering the SC hasn't ruled on it yet, your list is misleading. You should only include states that have modified the marriage contract via legislative actions as places it is "legal." Any ones that rely on a court decision are "TBD"

 

[Bush92]

Like the California voters who felt marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman. What about their rights?

You mean like Chicago citizens who felt that handguns should be illegal? Laws that violate the US Constitution get struck down.

where did the citizens vote on that? those laws were passed on them

Like the California voters who felt marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman. What about their rights?

You mean like Chicago citizens who felt that handguns should be illegal? Laws that violate the US Constitution get struck down.

Oh yes, I forgot that part in the Constitution about a guy corn holing another guy. Sure, its right there. John Locke stated it as well, about the rights of gays and lesbians...then he talked about the rights of pedophiles too. Yeah sure...

 

[paperview]

Countdown to Gaymageddon 2015!

 

[paperview]

SCOTUS Amicus Briefs in Favor of the Freedom to Marry:
2,000+ Clergy & Faith Leaders:

A broad range of religious groups, organizations, and leaders - including nearly 2,000 individual clergy - have signed onto this brief arguing in favor of civil marriage for same-sex couples. The signers represent people of faith living in each of the 50 states and Washington, D.C.

400 Businesses & Corporations:

Nearly 400 major American companies, including 40 of the Fortune 100 companies, signed a brief making the business case for marriage. The employers argue that the patchwork of marriage laws across the country cause them great financial burdens and impede their ability to administrate effectively.

mayors of america's cities

226 mayors and an additional 40 cities signed onto this brief making the case that the freedom to marry strengthens America's cities. Mayors from 38 states plus the District of Columbia are represented, with a wide range of jursidctions - from the smallest of towns to the top five largest cities in the country - speaking out in support of marriage. The brief also includes the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, and the International Municipal Lawyers Association.

Republican Leadership

More than 300 conservatives and Republicans have signed onto this historic brief making the case that the freedom to marry is a conservative value - and that marriage is strengthened, and its value to society and to individual families and couples is promoted, by providing access to civil marriage for all American couples.

ALL AMICI BRIEFS

 

[martybegan]

SCOTUS Amicus Briefs in Favor of the Freedom to Marry:
2,000+ Clergy & Faith Leaders:

A broad range of religious groups, organizations, and leaders - including nearly 2,000 individual clergy - have signed onto this brief arguing in favor of civil marriage for same-sex couples. The signers represent people of faith living in each of the 50 states and Washington, D.C.

400 Businesses & Corporations:

Nearly 400 major American companies, including 40 of the Fortune 100 companies, signed a brief making the business case for marriage. The employers argue that the patchwork of marriage laws across the country cause them great financial burdens and impede their ability to administrate effectively.

mayors of america's cities

226 mayors and an additional 40 cities signed onto this brief making the case that the freedom to marry strengthens America's cities. Mayors from 38 states plus the District of Columbia are represented, with a wide range of jursidctions - from the smallest of towns to the top five largest cities in the country - speaking out in support of marriage. The brief also includes the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, and the International Municipal Lawyers Association.

Republican Leadership

More than 300 conservatives and Republicans have signed onto this historic brief making the case that the freedom to marry is a conservative value - and that marriage is strengthened, and its value to society and to individual families and couples is promoted, by providing access to civil marriage for all American couples.

ALL AMICI BRIEFS

And that should make me care how? Most of the same people support citizens's united, Do you agree with that?

 

[paperview]

What makes you think I am posting for you, Marty, and what your mentally defective mind cares ?

 

[martybegan]

What makes you think I am posting for you, Marty, and what your mentally defective mind cares ?

What makes you assume I cannot respond to your post "just because" it wasn't posted directly to me?

and arguing that I must be mentally defective to have the views I have is the same as giving up on your own argument, thanks for playing.