SCOTUS: states cannot ban same sex marriage

[Steinlight]

No, not in any sense.

If I own a bakery, should I be allowed to not serve a gay wedding?

Not if the PA laws in your state say you must.

I understand what the law says. This isn't an issue of law, this is an issue of freedom. You are claiming you support personal freedom. Yet you support laws that prohibit free association.

The difference in our points of view I think is simple. Your side sees the PA laws as discriminatory toward Christians who wish to deny service to those they feel morally conflicted with. Fine. You take a principled stand that I can understand. My side believes the law is the arbitor and not faith.
I believe your position is wrong for only one reason. Our society follows the rule of law and not the rule of any one citizen's understanding of morality given by their God.
I don't see this as an affront to your religious beliefs as much as I see it as deferring to those who don't share your beliefs. The public sphere must be secular and generic. Freedom of religion allows all viewpoints and exercise of faith. Just not in public affairs.
How can the law properly ejudicate if it were allowed to consider the concerns of every faith all of the time? It couldn't. That would be a mess. The only realistic way of doing it is not to hold religious beliefs above the rights of the individual. Does that make sense?

Do you oppose rape?

WTF?

I am asking a question. Do you oppose rape? If you do, why do you oppose it?

 

[Steinlight]

No, not in any sense.

If I own a bakery, should I be allowed to not serve a gay wedding?

Not if the PA laws in your state say you must.

I understand what the law says. This isn't an issue of law, this is an issue of freedom. You are claiming you support personal freedom. Yet you support laws that prohibit free association.

Then your problem is the Public Accommodation laws.

Feel free to lead the charge to end Public Accommodation laws- it will be a bold Conservative move to suggest ending the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Unfortunately, "civil rights" trump the First Amendment. Sad day for a free society.

Without the rule of law, how could the courts ever rule on a case with two opposing yet equally valid religious disputes?
There must be an applicable statute and not simply a religious disagreement.

No one here is advocating for anarchy. So it is rather silly you are bringing up this "rule of law" argument, when you are violating the common law principle of free association and the first amendment right of free exercise of religion.

 

[danielpalos]

I don't see what is wrong with having tolerance for them. I really do not understand your objection. You can't go back in time.

I don't see why I should tolerate their deviant sexual behavior(which includes the aforementioned open relationships and high rate of HIV, at 20%), or the overall sexual revolution in general. So I don't understand your support for these lifestyles.
CDC 20 of Gay Men Are HIV-Positive but Nearly Half Don t Know It TIME.com

Social norms shift overtime. Societies go through cycles, from more religious to less so, from more conservative to less so. Societies historically do not go in a linear but instead a cyclical manner.

Well you don't really have to. Just don't associate with them.

Also, I don't really "support" a lifestyle. I support equal rights and privileges for all American citizens because that is what I was raised to believe America stands for.

Not associating with them isn't really an option, you can face very severe legal and financial consequences for refusing to associate with homosexuals, .

As an individual you can not associate with anyone- because they are black or Jewish or Mormon or gay.

But- as a business owner- in states with public accommodation laws- you cannot refuse to serve someone because they are black or Jewish or Gay or Mormon.

If following business laws is too much of a burden for you, you may not want to be in business.

You realize the philosophical inconsistency of your position. You don't stop owning yourself once you enter your place of business.

Owners only own their own morals, not the morals of others simply because, only religious authorities are authorized the Sheppard's staff on their flock.

In any Case, I make a motion to enjoin moral Causes on a not-for-lucre basis, simply for any stake-hold in the greater glory of our immortal souls, in that alternative.

 

[Steinlight]

I don't see why I should tolerate their deviant sexual behavior(which includes the aforementioned open relationships and high rate of HIV, at 20%), or the overall sexual revolution in general. So I don't understand your support for these lifestyles.
CDC 20 of Gay Men Are HIV-Positive but Nearly Half Don t Know It TIME.com

Social norms shift overtime. Societies go through cycles, from more religious to less so, from more conservative to less so. Societies historically do not go in a linear but instead a cyclical manner.

Well you don't really have to. Just don't associate with them.

Also, I don't really "support" a lifestyle. I support equal rights and privileges for all American citizens because that is what I was raised to believe America stands for.

Not associating with them isn't really an option, you can face very severe legal and financial consequences for refusing to associate with homosexuals, .

As an individual you can not associate with anyone- because they are black or Jewish or Mormon or gay.

But- as a business owner- in states with public accommodation laws- you cannot refuse to serve someone because they are black or Jewish or Gay or Mormon.

If following business laws is too much of a burden for you, you may not want to be in business.

You realize the philosophical inconsistency of your position. You don't stop owning yourself once you enter your place of business.

The same applies to business owners. No?

Exactly, your right of free association doesn't suddenly cease to exist once you enter your place of business, which is your property.

Just like an adult has the right to decide whom they get to engage in sexual relations with, and chose who they dont engage in sexual relations with, an individual has the right to decide who they engage and dont engage in business relationships with. This is because we as individuals own ourselves and having our consent forcibly withdrawn violates our individual sovereignty.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Not if the PA laws in your state say you must.

I understand what the law says. This isn't an issue of law, this is an issue of freedom. You are claiming you support personal freedom. Yet you support laws that prohibit free association.

The difference in our points of view I think is simple. Your side sees the PA laws as discriminatory toward Christians who wish to deny service to those they feel morally conflicted with. Fine. You take a principled stand that I can understand. My side believes the law is the arbitor and not faith.
I believe your position is wrong for only one reason. Our society follows the rule of law and not the rule of any one citizen's understanding of morality given by their God.
I don't see this as an affront to your religious beliefs as much as I see it as deferring to those who don't share your beliefs. The public sphere must be secular and generic. Freedom of religion allows all viewpoints and exercise of faith. Just not in public affairs.
How can the law properly ejudicate if it were allowed to consider the concerns of every faith all of the time? It couldn't. That would be a mess. The only realistic way of doing it is not to hold religious beliefs above the rights of the individual. Does that make sense?

Do you oppose rape?

WTF?

I am asking a question. Do you oppose rape? If you do, why do you oppose it?

Of course. What does that have to do with the discussion at hand?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Not if the PA laws in your state say you must.

I understand what the law says. This isn't an issue of law, this is an issue of freedom. You are claiming you support personal freedom. Yet you support laws that prohibit free association.

Then your problem is the Public Accommodation laws.

Feel free to lead the charge to end Public Accommodation laws- it will be a bold Conservative move to suggest ending the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Unfortunately, "civil rights" trump the First Amendment. Sad day for a free society.

Without the rule of law, how could the courts ever rule on a case with two opposing yet equally valid religious disputes?
There must be an applicable statute and not simply a religious disagreement.

No one here is advocating for anarchy. So it is rather silly you are bringing up this "rule of law" argument, when you are violating the common law principle of free association and the first amendment right of free exercise of religion.

I've explained my position accept it or not. You keep saying the same thing even when you are shown why that's wrong.
Go to school and take a freaking class. The internet isn't serving you well.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Well you don't really have to. Just don't associate with them.

Also, I don't really "support" a lifestyle. I support equal rights and privileges for all American citizens because that is what I was raised to believe America stands for.

Not associating with them isn't really an option, you can face very severe legal and financial consequences for refusing to associate with homosexuals, .

As an individual you can not associate with anyone- because they are black or Jewish or Mormon or gay.

But- as a business owner- in states with public accommodation laws- you cannot refuse to serve someone because they are black or Jewish or Gay or Mormon.

If following business laws is too much of a burden for you, you may not want to be in business.

You realize the philosophical inconsistency of your position. You don't stop owning yourself once you enter your place of business.

The same applies to business owners. No?

Exactly, your right of free association doesn't suddenly cease to exist once you enter your place of business, which is your property.

Just like an adult has the right to decide whom they get to engage in sexual relations with, and chose who they dont engage in sexual relations with, an individual has the right to decide who they engage and dont engage in business relationships with. This is because we as individuals own ourselves and having our consent forcibly withdrawn violates our individual sovereignty.

The right of free association as well as the consequences if used improperly according to the law.

 

[Steinlight]

I understand what the law says. This isn't an issue of law, this is an issue of freedom. You are claiming you support personal freedom. Yet you support laws that prohibit free association.

The difference in our points of view I think is simple. Your side sees the PA laws as discriminatory toward Christians who wish to deny service to those they feel morally conflicted with. Fine. You take a principled stand that I can understand. My side believes the law is the arbitor and not faith.
I believe your position is wrong for only one reason. Our society follows the rule of law and not the rule of any one citizen's understanding of morality given by their God.
I don't see this as an affront to your religious beliefs as much as I see it as deferring to those who don't share your beliefs. The public sphere must be secular and generic. Freedom of religion allows all viewpoints and exercise of faith. Just not in public affairs.
How can the law properly ejudicate if it were allowed to consider the concerns of every faith all of the time? It couldn't. That would be a mess. The only realistic way of doing it is not to hold religious beliefs above the rights of the individual. Does that make sense?

Do you oppose rape?

WTF?

I am asking a question. Do you oppose rape? If you do, why do you oppose it?

Of course. What does that have to do with the discussion at hand?

why do you oppose rape?

 

[Steinlight]

Not associating with them isn't really an option, you can face very severe legal and financial consequences for refusing to associate with homosexuals, .

As an individual you can not associate with anyone- because they are black or Jewish or Mormon or gay.

But- as a business owner- in states with public accommodation laws- you cannot refuse to serve someone because they are black or Jewish or Gay or Mormon.

If following business laws is too much of a burden for you, you may not want to be in business.

You realize the philosophical inconsistency of your position. You don't stop owning yourself once you enter your place of business.

The same applies to business owners. No?

Exactly, your right of free association doesn't suddenly cease to exist once you enter your place of business, which is your property.

Just like an adult has the right to decide whom they get to engage in sexual relations with, and chose who they dont engage in sexual relations with, an individual has the right to decide who they engage and dont engage in business relationships with. This is because we as individuals own ourselves and having our consent forcibly withdrawn violates our individual sovereignty.

The right of free association as well as the consequences if used improperly according to the law.

You don't have a right of free association if you can be prosecuted under the law for exercising it. That is like saying you have a right to free speech in North Korea, unless you speak out against the government.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The difference in our points of view I think is simple. Your side sees the PA laws as discriminatory toward Christians who wish to deny service to those they feel morally conflicted with. Fine. You take a principled stand that I can understand. My side believes the law is the arbitor and not faith.
I believe your position is wrong for only one reason. Our society follows the rule of law and not the rule of any one citizen's understanding of morality given by their God.
I don't see this as an affront to your religious beliefs as much as I see it as deferring to those who don't share your beliefs. The public sphere must be secular and generic. Freedom of religion allows all viewpoints and exercise of faith. Just not in public affairs.
How can the law properly ejudicate if it were allowed to consider the concerns of every faith all of the time? It couldn't. That would be a mess. The only realistic way of doing it is not to hold religious beliefs above the rights of the individual. Does that make sense?

Do you oppose rape?

WTF?

I am asking a question. Do you oppose rape? If you do, why do you oppose it?

Of course. What does that have to do with the discussion at hand?

why do you oppose rape?

I'm not playing your dumbass game.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

As an individual you can not associate with anyone- because they are black or Jewish or Mormon or gay.

But- as a business owner- in states with public accommodation laws- you cannot refuse to serve someone because they are black or Jewish or Gay or Mormon.

If following business laws is too much of a burden for you, you may not want to be in business.

You realize the philosophical inconsistency of your position. You don't stop owning yourself once you enter your place of business.

The same applies to business owners. No?

Exactly, your right of free association doesn't suddenly cease to exist once you enter your place of business, which is your property.

Just like an adult has the right to decide whom they get to engage in sexual relations with, and chose who they dont engage in sexual relations with, an individual has the right to decide who they engage and dont engage in business relationships with. This is because we as individuals own ourselves and having our consent forcibly withdrawn violates our individual sovereignty.

The right of free association as well as the consequences if used improperly according to the law.

You don't have a right of free association if you can be prosecuted under the law for exercising it. That is like saying you have a right to free speech in North Korea, unless you speak out against the government.

You have the right to free speech. Call the WH and threaten the pres and see what happens. There are limits.

 

[Idadunno]

So they can be pretend married? LMAO

A lot of men pretend not to be married while they are married. I would like to see one pretend to be married.

 

[Steinlight]

Do you oppose rape?

WTF?

I am asking a question. Do you oppose rape? If you do, why do you oppose it?

Of course. What does that have to do with the discussion at hand?

why do you oppose rape?

I'm not playing your dumbass game.

Its a reasonable question. Why do you think rape is wrong, philosophically speaking? This ties into the issue of self ownership and consent.

 

[Steinlight]

You realize the philosophical inconsistency of your position. You don't stop owning yourself once you enter your place of business.

The same applies to business owners. No?

Exactly, your right of free association doesn't suddenly cease to exist once you enter your place of business, which is your property.

Just like an adult has the right to decide whom they get to engage in sexual relations with, and chose who they dont engage in sexual relations with, an individual has the right to decide who they engage and dont engage in business relationships with. This is because we as individuals own ourselves and having our consent forcibly withdrawn violates our individual sovereignty.

The right of free association as well as the consequences if used improperly according to the law.

You don't have a right of free association if you can be prosecuted under the law for exercising it. That is like saying you have a right to free speech in North Korea, unless you speak out against the government.

You have the right to free speech. Call the WH and threaten the pres and see what happens. There are limits.

Specific and targeted threats aren't speech. Don't play this dishonest game. Whereas association is very clear, forcing people into business relationships violates the principle of free association.

There is no equivocation between threatening an individual and refusing to associate with an individual.

 

[ninja007]

I just saw the news on this and was going to post a link. You beat me to it.

This is GREAT news!!

I liked one bit in the article:
"Anthony Kennedy, a conservative justice who has broken with his ideological colleagues to author several decisions expanding rights for LGBT people, again sided with the court’s four liberals to strike down the state bans. The majority ruled that preventing same-sex people from marrying violated their constitutional right to equal protection under the law and that the states were unable to put forth a compelling reason to withhold that right from people."

from: Supreme Court affirms right to gay marriage

i stopped right there.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I just saw the news on this and was going to post a link. You beat me to it.

This is GREAT news!!

I liked one bit in the article:
"Anthony Kennedy, a conservative justice who has broken with his ideological colleagues to author several decisions expanding rights for LGBT people, again sided with the court’s four liberals to strike down the state bans. The majority ruled that preventing same-sex people from marrying violated their constitutional right to equal protection under the law and that the states were unable to put forth a compelling reason to withhold that right from people."

from: Supreme Court affirms right to gay marriage

i stopped right there.

Read the actual ruling, then.

No need to remain ignorant.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The same applies to business owners. No?

Exactly, your right of free association doesn't suddenly cease to exist once you enter your place of business, which is your property.

Just like an adult has the right to decide whom they get to engage in sexual relations with, and chose who they dont engage in sexual relations with, an individual has the right to decide who they engage and dont engage in business relationships with. This is because we as individuals own ourselves and having our consent forcibly withdrawn violates our individual sovereignty.

The right of free association as well as the consequences if used improperly according to the law.

You don't have a right of free association if you can be prosecuted under the law for exercising it. That is like saying you have a right to free speech in North Korea, unless you speak out against the government.

You have the right to free speech. Call the WH and threaten the pres and see what happens. There are limits.

Specific and targeted threats aren't speech. Don't play this dishonest game. Whereas association is very clear, forcing people into business relationships violates the principle of free association.

There is no equivocation between threatening an individual and refusing to associate with an individual.

You may post this as many times as you wish, it's just as wrong now as the first time you posted it.

 

[Syriusly]

The difference in our points of view I think is simple. Your side sees the PA laws as discriminatory toward Christians who wish to deny service to those they feel morally conflicted with. Fine. You take a principled stand that I can understand. My side believes the law is the arbitor and not faith.
I believe your position is wrong for only one reason. Our society follows the rule of law and not the rule of any one citizen's understanding of morality given by their God.
I don't see this as an affront to your religious beliefs as much as I see it as deferring to those who don't share your beliefs. The public sphere must be secular and generic. Freedom of religion allows all viewpoints and exercise of faith. Just not in public affairs.
How can the law properly ejudicate if it were allowed to consider the concerns of every faith all of the time? It couldn't. That would be a mess. The only realistic way of doing it is not to hold religious beliefs above the rights of the individual. Does that make sense?

Do you oppose rape?

WTF?

I am asking a question. Do you oppose rape? If you do, why do you oppose it?

Of course. What does that have to do with the discussion at hand?

why do you oppose rape?

Why do you support rape?

 

[Syriusly]

I might be close to the grave, but you are already in the grave, morally and socially speaking. I am relevant and you are an anachronism in your own time. If you think that we will go backwards to a society that closets homosexuality you are seriously delusional.


At the core of every argument against same sex marriage is the attitude, a belief that gay folks are fundamentally different than other people. There is a refusal to acknowledge the fact that they are real people with real lives and responsibilities and problems like everyone else.

Opponents of equality talk about tradition, about religion, about the law, about procreation, and oh yes, the sex….they love to talk about the sex as though that was all that gay folks do. They bloviate about how kids need a mom and a dad, but cannot explain how banning same sex marriage will result in more children having a traditional home, why that is important, and reject the fact-indeed will not discuss the fact-that denying gays the right to marry harms children.

They promote inane slippery slope to polygamy, incest, bestiality and whatever without any rational basis or logical argument. However, they can never ever talk about the fact that these are human beings who are profoundly affected by discrimination and the denial of the rights and benefits of marriage. They can only deal with the subject using abstract concepts and logical fallacies. If they dare to humanize the subject, even they might come to see how stupid their arguments are and that’s what they fear the most.

And they love to talk about racial equality and how race is different than sexual orientation, as though by doing so they can claim some moral high ground. The fact is that these are people who have a need to hate. In their own self loathing they need to see themselves as better, as more worthy than someone else. My guess is, that the people who claim to be against racial discrimination but who hate gays are the same people who- a couple of decades ago before gay rights came to the forefront- were segregationists, but knowing that they can’t get away with that any longer, have chosen a new target for their bigotry.

No I am not an anachronism. Civilizations rise and fall, and go through periods of decadence and degeneracy. This linear version of history of the progressive, of "social progress", doesn't bare itself out. Social degeneracy and hyperliberalism does not last for long, they are the last gasps of a dying society. A example in a state of anomie, one of nihilism and atomization. The US wont last forever, this liberal global order if you call it that wont sustain itself financially and socially in the long run. You are on the wrong side of history if you look at any empire, and make no mistake, America is an empire. When this economic and social order collapses, people will revert to more traditional values sets, they always do.

The fact is, those in my generation who hold these nihilistic views only hold them because that is what media and school tell them to do. If right wingers, conservative, christians, traditionalists, whatever you want to call us, controlled the institutions, they would agree with us. 90% of people are complete followers and follow the cultural memes of the institutions. Also, a good percent of people my age don't agree with pc, they just don't care or fear repercussions. The true believers are very few in number.

It is pitiful that you had to live a life abandoned from tradition, in order to keep a false sense of youth, with your cuckold "open relationship". You aren't young in spirit or relevant. You are a holdover from the 60s who time is coming to an end. Your views are just a flash in the pan as far as civilization goes. Right wing traditionalism, nationalism, faith, blood and soil are the human state are the natural state of man. Your rebellion against the natural order will not succeed.

Homosexuals are not like heterosexuals, as the HIV numbers, the sexual partner count, the open relationship rate, the meth use rate indicate. They simply aren't the same, and are not "equal". This sounds nice, but it isn't the reality of the situation.

How can you oppose polygamy or incestuous marriage. If they are all consenting adults, and marriage is a right, who are you to deny them this right and on what grounds?

Did I say anything about opposing polygamy and incest?

You said it was an inane slippery slope to suggest marriage rights for polygamists and incestuous couples. You brought it up to begin with.

So you support the right to marry for polygamists and incestuous couples?

You said the slippery slope was inane. It is not inane. If marriage is a right, how you prohibit incestuous and polygamous couples from marrying, as long as they are consenting adults?

So if marriage is a right- how can you prevent mixed race couples from marrying?

The Supreme Court said marriage is a right- and States cannot prevent mixed race couples from marrying.

If there is a slippery slope- that is the beginning of the 'slippery slope'- and therefore logically- you are against the bans on mixed race marriage being overturned.

Now- if you actually understood why that right can still exclude some persons from marrying- just as States can forbid some people from owning guns- you might understand what happened.

But that is not likely to happen.

You will just continue to stomp your feet.

Good luck with repealing the Public Accommodation laws.

 

[Syriusly]

That's too funny. Who cares what you think of the Supreme Court justices in their black robes? Their opinion matters. Yours? Not so much.

They can make their proclamations, and are certainly more powerful than me. They have the guns of the state to back up their views, I don't. But it doesn't change that forcing someone to act against their religious conscience or forcing them to associate with those they don't want to violates freedom of religion and free association.

Again, no one is being forced to go against their religion. The Bible doesn't say baking a cake is a sin.

Participating in a ceremony that celebrates a sin is a sin. As I said, read 1 Timothy 5:22, don't share in the sins of others.

Baking a cake is not a ceremony or participating in a ceremony- but if as a business owner, you have a problem complying with the law because of your religious beliefs, you should either change the law- or get out of business.

Can't refuse to serve Hindu's just because Hindu's live in sin because they worship a false god.

Then again, this aggressive anti-social behavior is not a surprise given who we are dealing with.

the 'aggressive anti-social behavior' being of course- the persons who refuse business to customers based upon the customers race, religion or sexual orientation.