Whatever ever happened to the little sign ‘We have a right to refuse service’?

[P@triot]

Yes, the issue IS FREEDOM. Which of these FREEDOMS would YOU be willing to give up?


Get the Facts! Because, Marriage Matters...
FACT = something that actually exists, reality, truth.

Marriage equality is an issue that often sparks intense emotions, both in those who are working for equality, and in those who oppose it. The institution of marriage is also surrounded by a great deal of assumption and mythology. It behooves us all to Get the Facts before discussing marriage equality. We hope that reading through Get the Facts will prove useful and answer your questions.

Marriage offers many legal benefits and responsibilities that protect families. It also provides societal status and emotional benefits. Here are just a fraction of the reasons why marriage matters to couples who choose/desire to marry.

The Practical

Marriage offers 1,138 Federal benefits and responsibilities, not including hundreds more offered by every state.

• In times of crisis, spouses have hospital visitation rights and can make medical decisions in event of illness or disability of their spouse.

• Employers offer spouses sick leave, bereavement leave, access to health insurance and pension

• The law provides certain automatic rights to a person's spouse regardless of whether or not a will exists.

• Married couples in elderly care facilities are generally not separated unless one spouse's health dictates hospitalization or special care.

• The dissolution of a marriage requires a determination of property distribution, award of child custody and support and spousal support. Absent divorce, there is no uniform system for sorting out the ending of a relationship.

The Financial

Financial issues are complex and challenging, no matter the couple. When home ownership, kids and other assets are a part of the equation, planning for the present and especially the future is even more critical for greater security.

• Married couples are permitted to give an unlimited amount of gifts to each other without being taxed.

• The law presumes that a married couple with both names on the title to their home owns the property as "tenants by the entirety."

• A married couple, by statute, has creditor protection of their marital home.

• Many married people are entitled to financial benefits relating to their spouses, such as disability, pension and social security benefits.

• With marriage, a couple has the right to be treated as an economic unit and to file joint tax returns (and pay the marriage penalty), and obtain joint health, home and auto insurance policies.

• When a spouse dies, there is no need to prove ownership of every item in the household for taxable purposes.

Protecting Children

• A child who grows up with married parents benefits from the fact that his or her parents' relationship is recognized by law and receives legal protections.

• Spouses are generally entitled to joint child custody and visitation upon divorce (and bear an obligation to pay child support).

• The mark of a strong family and healthy children is having parents who are nurturing, caring, and loving. Parents should be judged on their ability to parent, not by their age, race, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity.

A study published in the Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, entitled The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children found that:

• Same-gender couples live in 99.3% of all US counties.

• Same-gender couples are raising children in at least 96% of all US counties.

• Nearly one quarter of all same-gender couples are raising children.

• Nationwide, 34.3% of lesbian couples are raising children, and 22.3% of gay male couples are raising children (compared with 45.6% of married heterosexual and 43.1% of unmarried heterosexual couples raising children).

• Vermont has the largest aggregation of same gender-couples (~1% of all households) followed by California, Washington, Massachusetts, and Oregon.

According to this 2006 study Census 2000 and related demographic research make it clear that parenting by same-gender couples is an established and growing part of the diverse structure of families in the United States. Public policies that aim to promote family stability and security typically are established without consideration for same-gender parents and their children, and they place these families at a disadvantage, as they do heterosexual unmarried parents, single parents, and extended-family caregivers. Public policy designed to promote the family as the basic building block of society has at its core the protection of children's health and well-being. Children's well being relies in large part on a complex blend of their own legal rights and the rights derived, under law, from their parents. Children of same-gender parents often experience economic, legal, and familial insecurity as a result of the absence of legal recognition of their bonds to their nonbiological parents. Current public-policy trends, with notable exceptions, favor limiting or prohibiting the availability of civil marriage and limiting rights and protections to same-gender couples.

The Healthy Advantage

Studies show that people who are married tend to live longer and lead healthier lives.

• For adults, a stable, happy marriage is the best protector against illness and premature death. Decades of research have clearly established these links. (Burman & Margolin, 1992; Dawson, 1991; Verbrugge, 1979).

• Studies on marriages have found that married people live longer, have higher incomes and wealth, engage less in risky behaviors, eat healthier, and have fewer psychological problems than unmarried people. (Waite, Linda J. Why Marriage Matters Strengthening Marriage Roundtable. Washington, DC, June 1997)

• Research shows that unmarried couples have lower levels of happiness and well-being than married couples. (Popenoe, David and Dafoe Whitehead, Barbara, USA Today, July, 2000)

• A recent study shows that denying same-sex couples the right to marry has a negative impact on their mental health - I Do, But I can't: The impact of marriage denial on the mental health of sexual citizenship of Lesbians and Gay Men in the United States (Herdt, G. & Kertzner, R. 2006).

In typical greedy liberal fashion, these are not FREEDOMS. These are perks and benefits. Apparently the only thing you shallow, materialistic, greedy liberals can focus on.

The fact that you can't see the difference between perks/benefits/handouts and freedoms speaks volumes.

Then lets take them away from YOU and we'll see if you still consider them merely 'perks'.

Well that's an intelligent response.... A little unable to defend our position, are we? As I stated (and you are unable to dispute), like a typical shallow, materialistic, greedy Nazi-liberal you have mistaken perks and benefits for freedom. How sad.

You and Kondor are the biggest threat to this nation. YOU and Kondor are the ones who want to engage in social engineering with ZERO regard for another individual's rights. YOU and he want a whole nation to CONFORM to YOUR values, YOUR beliefs and YOUR egocentric world view.

I'm the only one defending rights and the Constitution. You're the Nazi-liberal who wants to force a business owner to violate their own 1st Amendment rights and serve someone (like a slave) who they have no desire to do business with.

What have I demanded that homosexuals be forced to do? If you have to force people to do anything BF, you know you're on the wrong side of the debate. I have no desire to force homosexuals to do anything. I don't want to force them into re-education camps (like you Nazi-liberals just did with this business owner), I don't want to force them into a heterosexual relationship, I don't want to force them to do business with anyone. I defend their Constitutional rights to freedom and I want them to be left the hell alone to live their life how they want. It speaks volumes that you consider that view to be "the biggest threat to this nation". Only a Nazi would consider someone who is demanding that all people be left alone to live in freedom a "threat to a nation". Because a Nazi believes that society will collapse if all people aren't forced to goose-step in the same direction for the "good" of the whole.

 

[P@triot]

The fact that you can't see the difference between perks/benefits/handouts and freedoms speaks volumes.

This issue is about Equality Before the Law my little cat toy. That's all. If more people end up treating gay people as people instead of demons, that is a side benefit.

Less homophobia, more marriage, all good.

That's what the issue should be. But sadly, with you shallow, materialistic, greedy little Nazi-liberals, it's always only about perks/benefits/handouts. It's never about freedom. In fact, you're always willing to trade rights and freedom from government table scraps.

It's so sad that millions have died to afford you the ultimate luxury and you have such little respect for it that you'll trade it like a baseball card for some pitiful, rationed healthcare.

 

[Bfgrn]

There is a lot of rot in our society, and in the history of mankind. You represent the worst kind of rot. The fact that you are totally oblivious to it is not surprising. Hitler truly believed he was doing God's work.

Yes, yes, yes... very nice, I'm sure... now, run along, Junior, you're bothering the grown-ups.

Some parting words to the Nazi creep whose idea of 'freedom' would be a US version of the Labouchere Amendment, from a man who was imprisoned under that law...

Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live; it is asking others to live as one wishes to live.
Oscar Wilde

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The fact that you can't see the difference between perks/benefits/handouts and freedoms speaks volumes.

This issue is about Equality Before the Law my little cat toy. That's all. If more people end up treating gay people as people instead of demons, that is a side benefit.

Less homophobia, more marriage, all good.

That's what the issue should be. But sadly, with you shallow, materialistic, greedy little Nazi-liberals, it's always only about perks/benefits/handouts. It's never about freedom. In fact, you're always willing to trade rights and freedom from government table scraps.

It's so sad that millions have died to afford you the ultimate luxury and you have such little respect for it that you'll trade it like a baseball card for some pitiful, rationed healthcare.

It is amazing the crap you've been spoon-fed, and believe.

Tell us, how will you deal with life in this country shortly when the gays get married like most others? Is this going to bother you for life or are you going to grow up and get over it?

 

[P@triot]

YOU are the center of the universe.

Hardly.

Merely highly active, for a few fleeting moments, in the shared conversation.

Although it is fast becoming clear that you see yourself as some kind of Avenging Angel.

Bound and obliged to smite hip and thigh, those whom dare to disagree with your position.

I will confess, however, to a growing amusement with your ankle-biting.

There is a lot of rot in our society, and in the history of mankind. You represent the worst kind of rot. The fact that you are totally oblivious to it is not surprising. Hitler truly believed he was doing God's work.

And just like Hitler, you keep trying to force everyone into your very fucked up ideology. Hitler forced people junior. Just like you want to force this baker to make cakes even though it violates his 1st Amendment rights.

I'm standing on the side that Hitler vehemently opposed (freedom). You're standing on the side that Hitler proudly stood on (oppression through force). Watching you slowly come to that realization as I educate you in this thread, and then having your internal conflict over it, has resulted in your lashing out and inability to articulate and defend your position (because, in the end, there really is no defending Hitler's position of forcing people into an ideology).

 

[JakeStarkey]

Rottweiler, the ultimate Godwin's Law dude, is whining again.

One, it is constitutional to force public accommodation by business.

Two, it is not constitutional to deny civil rights.

All Rott is doing is stamping his feet.

This argument is over and has been since Sotomayor decided to form a consensus to end the marriage equality question forever.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Just like you want to force this baker to make cakes even though it violates his 1st Amendment rights.

That dog wont hunt. The court tossed it 50 years ago when it said a hotel room is just a hotel room, a cake is just a cake. If it has a price-tag it's for sale to any and all.

 

[P@triot]

This issue is about Equality Before the Law my little cat toy. That's all. If more people end up treating gay people as people instead of demons, that is a side benefit.

Less homophobia, more marriage, all good.

That's what the issue should be. But sadly, with you shallow, materialistic, greedy little Nazi-liberals, it's always only about perks/benefits/handouts. It's never about freedom. In fact, you're always willing to trade rights and freedom from government table scraps.

It's so sad that millions have died to afford you the ultimate luxury and you have such little respect for it that you'll trade it like a baseball card for some pitiful, rationed healthcare.

It is amazing the crap you've been spoon-fed, and believe.

Tell us, how will you deal with life in this country shortly when the gays get married like most others? Is this going to bother you for life or are you going to grow up and get over it?

Tell me, how do you deal with your inability to dispute anything I've said even though you're dying to due to your emotional and very irrational positions?

You're trying to turn this into a different discussion because you're unable to dispute what has been said about this issue. We're not talking about gay marriage - we're talking about your Nazi-liberal desire to violate the U.S. Constitution and force people into servitude.

A private business owner on private property has the right to refuse to conduct business with anyone, any time, for any reason. Period. And it is not up for debate. And just because that kind of freedom enrages a little Nazi-liberal like you doesn't change it.

 

[Seawytch]

Even before gays have been added to some state or local public accommodation laws, you never fully had the right to refuse service for any reason. The Right to Refuse Service

If you want to discriminate against the gays, learn the laws of your locality.

Maps of State Laws & Policies

This one may be especially helpful:

Public Accommodation Laws

Public accommodations refers to both governmental entities and private businesses that provide services to the general public such as restaurants, movie theaters, libraries and shops. It does not encompasses private clubs that have a membership or dues process.


States that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity (17 states and D.C.):California (2005, 2011), Colorado (2008), Connecticut (1991, 2011), Delaware (2009, 2013), District of Columbia (1977, 2006), Hawaii (2006), Illinois (2006), Iowa (2007), Maine (2005), Maryland (2009, 2014) Minnesota (1993), Nevada (2009, 2011), New Jersey (1992, 2006), New Mexico (2004), Oregon (2007), Rhode Island (1995),
Vermont (1992, 2007) and Washington (2006).

States that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation only (4 states): Massachusetts (1989), New Hampshire (1998), New York (2002) and Wisconsin (2009).

 

[P@triot]

Just like you want to force this baker to make cakes even though it violates his 1st Amendment rights.

That dog wont hunt. The court tossed it 50 years ago when it said a hotel room is just a hotel room, a cake is just a cake. If it has a price-tag it's for sale to any and all.

First of all, no they didn't. They didn't rule on religious freedom. Second, the court doesn't decide our laws. They are the judicial branch junior. Laws are made by the legislative branch (a course in civics would serve you well). And right now, the U.S. Constitution is the highest law in the land (dictated by the Supremacy Clause). And the U.S. Constitution affords one their religious rights, including not being forced to engage in a gay marriage ceremony.

Any other absurd fallacies you'd like to throw out there?

 

[Kondor3]

Rottweiler, the ultimate Godwin's Law dude, is whining again.

One, it is constitutional to force public accommodation by business.

Two, it is not constitutional to deny civil rights.

All Rott is doing is stamping his feet.

This argument is over and has been since Sotomayor decided to form a consensus to end the marriage equality question forever.

It is in the best interests of The Opposition that you-and-yours continue to believe that it is over.

I don't think that we're going to have an actual answer to that until a couple of years have passed, after the ascension of the next truly conservative Administration.

Admittedly, that's pure speculation, but so is any attempt to predict the future.

 

[Bfgrn]

In typical greedy liberal fashion, these are not FREEDOMS. These are perks and benefits. Apparently the only thing you shallow, materialistic, greedy liberals can focus on.

The fact that you can't see the difference between perks/benefits/handouts and freedoms speaks volumes.

Then lets take them away from YOU and we'll see if you still consider them merely 'perks'.

Well that's an intelligent response.... A little unable to defend our position, are we? As I stated (and you are unable to dispute), like a typical shallow, materialistic, greedy Nazi-liberal you have mistaken perks and benefits for freedom. How sad.

You and Kondor are the biggest threat to this nation. YOU and Kondor are the ones who want to engage in social engineering with ZERO regard for another individual's rights. YOU and he want a whole nation to CONFORM to YOUR values, YOUR beliefs and YOUR egocentric world view.

I'm the only one defending rights and the Constitution. You're the Nazi-liberal who wants to force a business owner to violate their own 1st Amendment rights and serve someone (like a slave) who they have no desire to do business with.

What have I demanded that homosexuals be forced to do? If you have to force people to do anything BF, you know you're on the wrong side of the debate. I have no desire to force homosexuals to do anything. I don't want to force them into re-education camps (like you Nazi-liberals just did with this business owner), I don't want to force them into a heterosexual relationship, I don't want to force them to do business with anyone. I defend their Constitutional rights to freedom and I want them to be left the hell alone to live their life how they want. It speaks volumes that you consider that view to be "the biggest threat to this nation". Only a Nazi would consider someone who is demanding that all people be left alone to live in freedom a "threat to a nation". Because a Nazi believes that society will collapse if all people aren't forced to goose-step in the same direction for the "good" of the whole.

Funny to watch someone try to turn discrimination into something 'moral', and then call those who are against any kind of discrimination 'Nazis'...

Your form of 'freedom' is clearly represented on this board, by you, Kondor and your 'ilk'

Jesus used physical force and beat the crap out of people that offended him, would you prefer that approach?

No, we're defending THE RIGHT to discriminate.

Freedom includes the freedom to discriminate.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

A private business owner on private property has the right to refuse to conduct business with anyone, any time, for any reason. Period.

Let's just stick with this part. This is what a child would think, and it's not true.

What's not up for debate is the fact that what you believe is totally and absolutely untrue.

 

[kaz]

Just like you want to force this baker to make cakes even though it violates his 1st Amendment rights.

That dog wont hunt. The court tossed it 50 years ago when it said a hotel room is just a hotel room, a cake is just a cake. If it has a price-tag it's for sale to any and all.

Oh stop whining and just go to the bakery down the street. Seriously, can you do nothing for yourself?

 

[kaz]

Then lets take them away from YOU and we'll see if you still consider them merely 'perks'.

Well that's an intelligent response.... A little unable to defend our position, are we? As I stated (and you are unable to dispute), like a typical shallow, materialistic, greedy Nazi-liberal you have mistaken perks and benefits for freedom. How sad.



I'm the only one defending rights and the Constitution. You're the Nazi-liberal who wants to force a business owner to violate their own 1st Amendment rights and serve someone (like a slave) who they have no desire to do business with.

What have I demanded that homosexuals be forced to do? If you have to force people to do anything BF, you know you're on the wrong side of the debate. I have no desire to force homosexuals to do anything. I don't want to force them into re-education camps (like you Nazi-liberals just did with this business owner), I don't want to force them into a heterosexual relationship, I don't want to force them to do business with anyone. I defend their Constitutional rights to freedom and I want them to be left the hell alone to live their life how they want. It speaks volumes that you consider that view to be "the biggest threat to this nation". Only a Nazi would consider someone who is demanding that all people be left alone to live in freedom a "threat to a nation". Because a Nazi believes that society will collapse if all people aren't forced to goose-step in the same direction for the "good" of the whole.

Funny to watch someone try to turn discrimination into something 'moral', and then call those who are against any kind of discrimination 'Nazis'...

Your form of 'freedom' is clearly represented on this board, by you, Kondor and your 'ilk'

No, we're defending THE RIGHT to discriminate.

Freedom includes the freedom to discriminate.

Yes, making life fair. That's in the Constitution, isn't it? It's the whole purpose of government.

 

[P@triot]

Even before gays have been added to some state or local public accommodation laws, you never fully had the right to refuse service for any reason. The Right to Refuse Service

If you want to discriminate against the gays, learn the laws of your locality.

Maps of State Laws & Policies

This one may be especially helpful:

Public Accommodation Laws

Public accommodations refers to both governmental entities and private businesses that provide services to the general public such as restaurants, movie theaters, libraries and shops. It does not encompasses private clubs that have a membership or dues process.


States that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity (17 states and D.C.):California (2005, 2011), Colorado (2008), Connecticut (1991, 2011), Delaware (2009, 2013), District of Columbia (1977, 2006), Hawaii (2006), Illinois (2006), Iowa (2007), Maine (2005), Maryland (2009, 2014) Minnesota (1993), Nevada (2009, 2011), New Jersey (1992, 2006), New Mexico (2004), Oregon (2007), Rhode Island (1995),
Vermont (1992, 2007) and Washington (2006).

States that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation only (4 states): Massachusetts (1989), New Hampshire (1998), New York (2002) and Wisconsin (2009).

A private citizen on private property has the right to refuse anything for any reason. Period. It cannot be debated (though that doesn't stop the unhinged from trying).

Furthermore, even those unconstitutional absurd liberal laws cited above, passed by unhinged liberal politicians do not apply as these people did not attempt to walk in and purchase things available to other people (such as the pies in the display case, the cupcakes on the counter, etc.). They asked for a special item made specifically for them. They asked for a custom item that was not available to anyone else. Therefore, the baker had even further grounds to deny service.

Game. Set. Match.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Second, the court doesn't decide our laws.

The Court decides whether or not a law is Constitutional. And in this case it was, which means, wait for it........................ that you lost this argument, 50 years ago.

 

[kaz]

Even before gays have been added to some state or local public accommodation laws, you never fully had the right to refuse service for any reason.

You are a lot better off letting discriminators suffer the consequence of the marketplace. Seriously, why would you even want government to force someone to bake a cake? Why would you not want to give your business to someone who doesn't discriminate? Why would you want to eat a cake made by someone who made it because they were forced to? Is that seriously what you think is an appropriate use of the power of guns, forcing citizens to bake cakes and sell things they paid for to people?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Yes, making life fair. That's in the Constitution, isn't it? It's the whole purpose of government.

Life being Fair isn't but Equality is. It wasn't true at first but we're gettin' there now.

 

[P@triot]

Then lets take them away from YOU and we'll see if you still consider them merely 'perks'.

Well that's an intelligent response.... A little unable to defend our position, are we? As I stated (and you are unable to dispute), like a typical shallow, materialistic, greedy Nazi-liberal you have mistaken perks and benefits for freedom. How sad.

I'm the only one defending rights and the Constitution. You're the Nazi-liberal who wants to force a business owner to violate their own 1st Amendment rights and serve someone (like a slave) who they have no desire to do business with.

What have I demanded that homosexuals be forced to do? If you have to force people to do anything BF, you know you're on the wrong side of the debate. I have no desire to force homosexuals to do anything. I don't want to force them into re-education camps (like you Nazi-liberals just did with this business owner), I don't want to force them into a heterosexual relationship, I don't want to force them to do business with anyone. I defend their Constitutional rights to freedom and I want them to be left the hell alone to live their life how they want. It speaks volumes that you consider that view to be "the biggest threat to this nation". Only a Nazi would consider someone who is demanding that all people be left alone to live in freedom a "threat to a nation". Because a Nazi believes that society will collapse if all people aren't forced to goose-step in the same direction for the "good" of the whole.

Funny to watch someone try to turn discrimination into something 'moral', and then call those who are against any kind of discrimination 'Nazis'...

Your form of 'freedom' is clearly represented on this board, by you, Kondor and your 'ilk'

No, we're defending THE RIGHT to discriminate.

Freedom includes the freedom to discriminate.

That's just it BFGRN - even if this was "discrimination", freedom includes the freedom to discriminate. And like Hitler, you want to force people into your absurd view that you can build a utopian society where you can force the discrimination and flaws out of people. You are the biggest threat to society and freedom. You immature, absurd, asinine belief that you know what is best and that you can just force the flaws out of people and into utopia.

The fact is, if this baker is some bigoted asshat, then why the fuck would you want to do business with him? Wouldn't you rather see him go out of business? Why would you want to hand over your money to him so that he could use it against you to influence anti-gay laws and politicians? Is it because you and your Nazi-liberal ilk are too fuck'n lazy to start your own bakeries and thus have no other options for a wedding cake? I'm honestly curious and for some reason, you don't seem able to answer these simple questions.