Should people have to perform/provide services for gay weddings?

[bodecea]

The same laws that make businesses serve minorities (thinking Dennys and black folks here) can be used to make businesses serve gays. It is the state(s) who pass such laws. If the people of those states think such laws are unfair, they need to repeal them.

 

[bodecea]

It would be true if you held the same for your own party. But unfortunately if your party holds the majority opinion, regardless of it's constitutionality, you will say "it's not unconstitutional". The act of suppressing hundreds of millions of people for the will of a few million is ludicrous. That has a totalitarian feel to it, mind you.

It is incumbent upon the majority to use its power wisely and in accordance with Constitutional case law, to enact measures in good faith beneficial to society as a whole, with animosity toward no class of persons.

When the majority fails in this regard, such as with DOMA and Proposition 8, they forfeit that power, as the power of the majority (state) is not absolute.

It would indeed be ‘totalitarian’ to ignore the rule of law, the Constitution, and the inalienable rights possessed by each man.

At some point, the will of the majority no longer matters, case law or not. Lets just say from now on the majority no longer has any power over anything, and let the minority usurp them at each and every turn.

If the majority will is constitutional, it will stand. But let me not get in the way of your pity party.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Hypocrisy is not the question or the point.

You said you don't believe the will of the majority should be suppressed. I asked if that were the case even if the will of the majority was unconstitutional.

Your question does not make any sense. Negating the will of the majority in any instance sets a precedent that it can be suppressed at will. I will not accept such behavior.

LOL

Now there's a crock of bullshit.

If the will of the majority is unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional.

Suuure.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

 

[TemplarKormac]

It is incumbent upon the majority to use its power wisely and in accordance with Constitutional case law, to enact measures in good faith beneficial to society as a whole, with animosity toward no class of persons.

When the majority fails in this regard, such as with DOMA and Proposition 8, they forfeit that power, as the power of the majority (state) is not absolute.

It would indeed be ‘totalitarian’ to ignore the rule of law, the Constitution, and the inalienable rights possessed by each man.

At some point, the will of the majority no longer matters, case law or not. Lets just say from now on the majority no longer has any power over anything, and let the minority usurp them at each and every turn.

If the majority will is constitutional, it will stand. But let me not get in the way of your pity party.

Don't bother, you've thrown enough of them today already yourself.

 

[Amelia]

The same laws that make businesses serve minorities (thinking Dennys and black folks here) can be used to make businesses serve gays. It is the state(s) who pass such laws. If the people of those states think such laws are unfair, they need to repeal them.

There's a difference between serving gays and making cakes for gay weddings.

Do bakers have no discretion about what they will and will not decorate a cake with? Would they be forced by law to put a racist message on a cake if requested? Would they be forced to make a cake for the KKK if requested?

 

[TemplarKormac]

The same laws that make businesses serve minorities (thinking Dennys and black folks here) can be used to make businesses serve gays. It is the state(s) who pass such laws. If the people of those states think such laws are unfair, they need to repeal them.

The term minority is a misnomer. Blacks are not minorities, Hispanics sure as heck aren't minorities. If the people thought these laws were unfair to begin with in these states, they would have rejected the petition to begin with. Therefore they consented to this law.

 

[B. Kidd]

When I sold condoms door-to-door, rump rangers were some of my steadiest customers.

 

[sfcalifornia]

Your question does not make any sense. Negating the will of the majority in any instance sets a precedent that it can be suppressed at will. I will not accept such behavior.

LOL

Now there's a crock of bullshit.

If the will of the majority is unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional.

Suuure.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The fact that the Constitution is arbitrary is also not the point.

The point is: minorities are protected under Constitutional law and when the will of the majority violates the Constitution, it will be struck down.

Don't like it? Change the Constitution.

 

[buckeye45_73]

LOL

Now there's a crock of bullshit.

If the will of the majority is unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional.

Suuure.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The fact that the Constitution is arbitrary is also not the point.

The point is: minorities are protected under Constitutional law and when the will of the majority violates the Constitution, it will be struck down.

Don't like it? Change the Constitution.

You have an example on this? The constitution was written where the govt cant descriminate against normal people, but people can do what theh want

 

[sfcalifornia]

Suuure.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The fact that the Constitution is arbitrary is also not the point.

The point is: minorities are protected under Constitutional law and when the will of the majority violates the Constitution, it will be struck down.

Don't like it? Change the Constitution.

You have an example on this? The constitution was written where the govt cant descriminate against normal people, but people can do what theh want

And if you have to ask for an example of how the Constitution protects minorities from a mob-rule majority then you haven't paid attention to the last two hundred plus years of Supreme Court decisions.

You don't have a clue evidently why the Constitution was written and how it works.

No, people can't just do what they want and the word "normal" has nothing to do with the conversation.



Go back to your bottle.

 

[sfcalifornia]

When I sold condoms door-to-door, rump rangers were some of my steadiest customers.

So what's your point?

Gays use a lot of condoms?

BFD.

 

[TemplarKormac]

LOL

Now there's a crock of bullshit.

If the will of the majority is unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional.

Suuure.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The fact that the Constitution is arbitrary is also not the point.

The point is: minorities are protected under Constitutional law and when the will of the majority violates the Constitution, it will be struck down.

Don't like it? Change the Constitution.

The Constitution is arbitrary for a reason! If you don't like it, change it. Otherwise accept it as it is.

Sure, we should limit majority rights wherever possible. The Constitution be damned.

 

[sfcalifornia]

Suuure.

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."

The fact that the Constitution is arbitrary is also not the point.

The point is: minorities are protected under Constitutional law and when the will of the majority violates the Constitution, it will be struck down.

Don't like it? Change the Constitution.

The Constitution is arbitrary for a reason! If you don't like it, change it. Otherwise accept it as it is.

Sure, we should limit majority rights wherever possible. The Constitution be damned.

I'm perfectly happy with the Supreme Court's decision to strike down DOMA on the fact that it violates the Constitution.

What's your problem with it?

 

[B. Kidd]

When I sold condoms door-to-door, rump rangers were some of my steadiest customers.

So what's your point?

Gays use a lot of condoms?

BFD.

The point is, anybody in business interested in making money shouldn't give two craps whether their customers are gay or not.

 

[Intense]

It is called civil rights because the rights belong to individual citizens and not to businesses.

If a church rents its property out to non members for the purpose of marriage then they can't discriminate against people based on all the reasons that discrimination occurs, just like any other business.

If the church does not rent the property then they can't be sued for not renting for gay marriages.

That is a great example of hypocrisy, there is no ethical standard there.

 

[LoneLaugher]

The law suits in question have to do with state law.....not federal law.

There is no record of Jesus ever mentioning homosexuality.

A business must adhere to the laws of the state/county/municipality in which it exists. We are a nation of laws. We are not a nation of the religious fantasy.

 

[oldfart]

On Face the Nation this morning Bob Schieffer was surprised to hear that people such as bakers and photographers are facing fines and possibly jail time for not providing their services to gay weddings. Whatever you feel about whether people should be forced to facilitate something they are religiously opposed to, it says a lot about the media coverage that Schieffer didn't even know about it.

Do you feel people who are religiously opposed to gay marriage should have to cater to gay weddings?

Obama said he won't make churches perform gay weddings. So, if we believe him, that one little corner of culture might not be forced to change. But everything else is fair game, isn't it.

Public schools will be actively attempting to make children view gay marriage as normal. Adoption agencies will be penalized for not arranging for children to be placed with gay couples. And bakers could lose thousands of dollars or go to jail if they refuse to put two plastic men on top of a wedding cake.

Exactly what grounds are you suggesting be tolerated for businesses to discriminate? And are you comfortable if tens of millions of Americans decide to honor boycotts of such businesses? Or do you wish, as has been tried, to use the legal system to sue for damages if people choose to honor boycotts?

Go ahead, conservative freaks. Plaster signs on your business that tell me you don't want to serve gays, or union members, or Hispanics, or Jews, so that I can easily identify and walk past you. Don't hide like the Chic-Fil-A owners behind a "normal" façade while expecting everyone to not hold your despicable political positions against you.

If you're not ashamed of your bigotry, why not make it public?

And the wedding industry is the last place such bigotry makes any sense. Check out the acceptance of gay marriage by age groups.

 

[LoneLaugher]

On Face the Nation this morning Bob Schieffer was surprised to hear that people such as bakers and photographers are facing fines and possibly jail time for not providing their services to gay weddings. Whatever you feel about whether people should be forced to facilitate something they are religiously opposed to, it says a lot about the media coverage that Schieffer didn't even know about it.

Do you feel people who are religiously opposed to gay marriage should have to cater to gay weddings?

Obama said he won't make churches perform gay weddings. So, if we believe him, that one little corner of culture might not be forced to change. But everything else is fair game, isn't it.

Public schools will be actively attempting to make children view gay marriage as normal. Adoption agencies will be penalized for not arranging for children to be placed with gay couples. And bakers could lose thousands of dollars or go to jail if they refuse to put two plastic men on top of a wedding cake.

I watched that segment. Perkins jumped on Schieffer for not being aware of a handful of civil actions against bigots in Colorado and New Mexico. The suggestion being that the media was covering it up. Perkins did not answer the question that Bob asked....however. How many such lawsuits have been filed?

That Perkins is a politician. He was skilled at not answering questions.

How many law suits are we talking about?

 

[Moonglow]

Because gay marriage never should have been prohibited in the first place.

You may not have seen my edit.

Even if gay marriage should not have been prohibited, that doesn't mean it was normal, so why should schools teach that it was?


That brings me to the question in my edit: During which time periods has gay marriage been normal?

Just prior to the fall of historically great civilizations, gay marriage was considered normal.

Which ones?

 

[TemplarKormac]

The fact that the Constitution is arbitrary is also not the point.

The point is: minorities are protected under Constitutional law and when the will of the majority violates the Constitution, it will be struck down.

Don't like it? Change the Constitution.

The Constitution is arbitrary for a reason! If you don't like it, change it. Otherwise accept it as it is.

Sure, we should limit majority rights wherever possible. The Constitution be damned.

I'm perfectly happy with the Supreme Court's decision to strike down DOMA on the fact that it violates the Constitution.

What's your problem with it?

Are you trying to intimidate me? What is my problem with it? That the majority no longer has rights to petition their government for the chance to change the laws which govern them.

And technically, they didn't declare it unconstitutional, they vacated and remanded it, which let the ruling of the lower court stand. The fight is far from over, since proponents can raise this issue again in their next session. The SCOTUS has demonstrated a willingness to hear it again.