How to discriminate legally

[Perd Hapley]

Again, what's the bug up your butt about the flavors of junk in somebody's drawers when it comes to them signing a particular contract between each other?  It's not like you're the one licking them.  

Oh, I didn't realize I had to justify my being involved in this discussion. You realize, of course, that your question is puerile. If we're going to play that game, why should you care about same-sex unions?

And there's very little non-religious keeping it that way.  

That would only make sense if one religion had made marriage heterosexual, and kept it that way, across millennia, and across the globe. That is not the case.

Recognition of the current state of affairs shouldn't imply approval of it.

Yet you clearly approve of government recognizing homosexual couplings, so I'm not sure why you bring it up. Also, recognizing that marriage is, as a matter of fact, heterosexual, shouldn't imply that homosexuality is wrong, or that homosexuals are bad people.

We also need some sort of governmental recognition of pair-bonding so long as the government is handing out benefits for it and having it be codified into the legal system for things like custody, medical rights(power of attorney), inheritance, etc...

If anyone really cared about that, they would have addressed it long ago, w/o tying it to something most people found (at best) distasteful.


This all makes much more sense when you think it about it rationally, instead of trying to be on "the right side of history."

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

The faithful promised churches would not be forced to do gay marriages and yet less than a decade after the start that has proven to be a lie.incremental attacks


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Firethorn]

The faithful promised churches would not be forced to do gay marriages and yet less than a decade after the start that has proven to be a lie.incremental attacks

Citation?

Oh, I didn't realize I had to justify my being involved in this discussion. You realize, of course, that your question is puerile. If we're going to play that game, why should you care about same-sex unions?

I don't, really.  Other than:
1.  Seeing it as an overall increase in freedom.
2.  It's none of other's people's business as to saying who can marry who, other than 'competent consenting adult'.

That would only make sense if one religion had made marriage heterosexual, and kept it that way, across millennia, and across the globe. That is not the case.

Nope, you have all sorts of marriage traditions.  Most were generally 1 man and 1 women.  Some were 1 man and multiple women.  Some were multiple men and 1 women.  Some had multiples of both.  Some made it for limited periods of time.  Some don't bother.

Yet you clearly approve of government recognizing homosexual couplings, so I'm not sure why you bring it up. Also, recognizing that marriage is, as a matter of fact, heterosexual, shouldn't imply that homosexuality is wrong, or that homosexuals are bad people.

2 adults wanting to get married.  Why should I care?  Okay, here's a question for you:  Would you be willing to accept a 'civil union' that had identical government benefits as marriage, but just wasn't called that?

What if they go to their religious organization and said organization recognizes them as being married?  Are you not going to recognize that?  Are you going to throw a fit if their religion doesn't recognize YOUR marriage because it doesn't meet some requirement of theirs? 

If anyone really cared about that, they would have addressed it long ago, w/o tying it to something most people found (at best) distasteful.

Like I said, I was in support of saying 'get rid of marriage in government, civil unions for everybody!'  I got outvoted/overrulled.

This all makes much more sense when you think it about it rationally, instead of trying to be on "the right side of history."

Actually, I don't really care about being on the 'right side of history', and my 90% logical brain(tested!  I hardly ever make 'emotional' decisions, to the point that it hurts me in life), came up with letting them get married is the correct decision.  Maximum freedom, remember?

I'm going to point out that, thus far, your argument against gay marriage has amounted to 'but we aren't allowed to discriminate against them!'

Stick 'black' in for 'gay' and can you see why your viewpoints are getting poor ratings?

You know, I thought conservatives were supposed to be better at predicting liberal thought?  So why are you doing so lousy with me?  Could it be that I'm not actually liberal?

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Cite
http://www.umc.org/news-and-media/gay-couple-files-complaint-for-refusal-of-wedding

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

http://conservativebyte.com/2015/06/gay-couple-is-suing-to-force-a-church-to-hold-their-wedding/

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[cordex]

I'm going to point out that, thus far, your argument against gay marriage has amounted to 'but we aren't allowed to discriminate against them!'

Stick 'black' in for 'gay' and can you see why your viewpoints are getting poor ratings?

As a self-professed libertarian, do you advocate the government prohibiting discrimination by private parties or companies based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, political affiliation, hair color, music tastes or any other factor?

[Hawkmoon]

The faithful promised churches would not be forced to do gay marriages and yet less than a decade after the start that has proven to be a lie.incremental attacks

They're not being forced to perform gay marriages. They're just being "persuaded" to see the light ...

As to incremental attacks: I'm a justice of the peace in my state. We are appointed for four-year terms, which happen to coincide with the term of office of the President. So I was past sworn in in January of 2013. At that time, I asked the municipal clerk (who is the official who swears us in) what the deal was on same-sex marriages. The answer in January of 2013 was, "You don't have to perform them if you don't want to."

A few months ago I read something that disturbed me, so I called and asked the question again. New answer: "You can't refuse to perform a wedding for a same-sex couple, so if it violates your conscience just tell them you're not available on that date." (In other words -- lie.) I have just over six months to decide whether or not I'll continue as a J.P. I can perform almost all the other functions of a J.P. if I become a notary public, and as an ordained minister I can perform marriages without being a J.P., so I'm leaning toward just becoming a notary.

But, yes ... we are being subjected to "creeping incrementalism."

[Hawkmoon]

Cite
http://www.umc.org/news-and-media/gay-couple-files-complaint-for-refusal-of-wedding

I fail to see how declining to perform a same sex wedding is gender discrimination.

If the pastor was willing to marry two lesbians but not two males, that would be gender discrimination. If he was willing to marry two males but not two lesbians, that would be gender discrimination. If he's simply not performing same-sex weddings, he's treating both genders the same. No discrimination.

[dogmush]

CSD your cites are usually better than that.

The first has nothing to do with government at all.  The Pastor is being accused of going against the rules of his own denomination.  The complaint was filed internal to the UMC.  If the UMC says they church does gay weddings, and he's a UMC Pastor than the church has every right to "Stick with our doctrine or GTFO".  I'm sure other denominations with large governing bodies do the same thing over all kinds of issues.  Either way it's an internal UMC issue, not a freedom/.gov overreach one.

The second is closer, except that it's in the UK, which lacks much of our separation of church and state laws and tradition, and is much more likely to default to gov coercion.  It's also 3 years old with no (easily googleable) outcome, so it seems like it's not going all that well.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

We were assured that never would clergy be asked to perform a wedding that went outside the tenants of their faith. It took less than a decade

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

http://eaglerising.com/6712/government-forces-church-perform-gay-marriage/

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/millionaire-gay-couple-suing-force-church-hold-wedding/

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Denmark too
http://conservativebyte.com/2015/06/gay-couple-is-suing-to-force-a-church-to-hold-their-wedding/

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[MechAg94]

As a self-professed libertarian, do you advocate the government prohibiting discrimination by private parties or companies based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, political affiliation, hair color, music tastes or any other factor?

The more I see stuff like this the more I want to see all bans on discrimination by private parties eliminated.  Bringing all that out in the open might be a good thing.

[cordex]

The more I see stuff like this the more I want to see all bans on discrimination by private parties eliminated.  Bringing all that out in the open might be a good thing.

I agree.  While well-intentioned, anti-discrimination laws are unnecessary and wrong.

[brimic]

Guess who just got put into my phone as my preferred tow contact?

Where is the 'Like' button for this post?

[Boomhauer]

Where is the 'Like' button for this post?

I'm not kidding, he's local for me.

Let's steer this thread back towards a whiny Bernie bitch getting her comeuppance. Note the tolerant, peace loving leftists who are all about some death threats and bomb threats over this.

[Firethorn]

As a self-professed libertarian, do you advocate the government prohibiting discrimination by private parties or companies based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, political affiliation, hair color, music tastes or any other factor?

No.  Government positions are one thing-they're government employees.  Take out the trash, hand out marriage licenses, hunting permits, etc...  Refuse to do your job, get fired.

Private parties and companies should be allowed to be discriminatory if they want to be.  Much like places with no carry signs, I will simply take my business elsewhere if they're bad enough.  This is doubly true for small businesses such as sole proprietors.

Cite
http://www.umc.org/news-and-media/gay-couple-files-complaint-for-refusal-of-wedding

Why are people so proud of tapatalk and what phone they are using?

Anyways, internal church politics.  Form your own denomination if you want.

2nd link isn't even in the USA and involves the church of England, which is kinda-sorta part of the government over there.
3rd is Denmark(which has a state church if I remember right)
4th is a repeat of the second.
5th is a repeat of the 3rd

You could have also put them all in 1 post.

For all the fearmongering in the articles, none of the quoted countries have our tradition of separation of church and state.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

No.  Government positions are one thing-they're government employees.  Take out the trash, hand out marriage licenses, hunting permits, etc...  Refuse to do your job, get fired.

Private parties and companies should be allowed to be discriminatory if they want to be.  Much like places with no carry signs, I will simply take my business elsewhere if they're bad enough.  This is doubly true for small businesses such as sole proprietors.

Why are people so proud of tapatalk and what phone they are using?

Anyways, internal church politics.  Form your own denomination if you want.

2nd link isn't even in the USA and involves the church of England, which is kinda-sorta part of the government over there.
3rd is Denmark(which has a state church if I remember right)
4th is a repeat of the second.
5th is a repeat of the 3rd

You could have also put them all in 1 post.

For all the fearmongering in the articles, none of the quoted countries have our tradition of separation of church and state.

But in all those countries the same basic players have assured everybody from the beginning that never never would somebody be forced perform a wedding that went against their beliefs and they lieed and I have no reason to suspect that they're not going to lie here

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[Ron]

But in all those countries the same basic players have a short everybody from the beginning that never never would somebody be forced perform a wedding that went against their beliefs and they lieed and I have no reason to suspect that they're not going to lie here

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

Everyone will be forced to prostrate themselves before the religion the western ruling elite has imposed upon them (radical secular egalitarianism). Of course like all systems there needs to be a Priestly class who the masses will look to for direction. Our ruling elites have unselfishly taken it upon themselves to shepherd us into this Utopia.   

[dogmush]

Oh, some of them are undoubtedly lying.  It's not like the activists are some homogeneous Borg collective. Even if the main players weren't lying there's sure to be some ahole that'll drop a lawsuit. Like those two in the UK.  You got any info on the outcome of that suit?  I googled a bit but couldn't find anything other then it was filed before I lost interest.

That said, you could apply that rational (The group has some aholes that will push it too far) to ANY argument for expanding freedoms.  It's worth being aware of, and planning to make sure the slide is stopped, but it's not, as an argument, reason to never advance freedom.

I'm starting to think that this will end with churches stopping the issuance of marriage licenses.  The church(es) will do their thing, and make a relationship right with whichever God or Gods, and if the couple would like to involve the government as well they can wander on down to the court house and do that as well, or not.  Or if a couple wants to be joined in the eyes of the law, they can go down to the court house.  If they want they can then go down to the church and become right with them, or not.

Not sure that will be better or worse, but it seems the outcome we're aiming at.

[roo_ster]

And there's very little non-religious keeping it that way. 

Well, nothing except biology and human practice going back to the dawn of history.  I am reminded  that a problem with progressivism, libertarianism, and other utopian creeds is that they are at war with both nature and reality.

==========

You fail as a libertarian.

To be fair, so do libertarians, who have become the party of "What on our nihilistic agenda can we get gov't to enforce with the threat of violence?

==========

Stick 'black' in for 'gay' and can you see why your viewpoints are getting poor ratings?

Your "90% logical" brain is failing you on that one.  Bye Awl Oh Gee.

This is how its done:

I fail to see how declining to perform a same sex wedding is gender discrimination.

==========

That said, you could apply that rational (The group has some aholes that will push it too far) to ANY argument for expanding freedoms.  It's worth being aware of, and planning to make sure the slide is stopped, but it's not, as an argument, reason to never advance freedom.

Maybe so, but homosexual pseudomarriage is not an expanded freedom.  It is an increase in intervention by gov't--in an of itself--and it has lead to the abridgment of freedom for orders of magnitude of folk more than will ever partake of its "benefits."

[Doggy Daddy]

Why are people so proud of tapatalk and what phone they are using?

I'm not!  I wish I could find a better alternative to Crapatalk than using a mobile browser.

[Hawkmoon]

I'm starting to think that this will end with churches stopping the issuance of marriage licenses.

In the U.S., churches don't issue marriage licenses. I don't think they do anywhere in the world. Marriage licenses are issued by civil authorities, typically either municipal or county. Marriages are performed in (not by) churches, by clergymen. In some countries, a marriage isn't fully complete until there has been a church wedding AND a civil wedding.

[Firethorn]

But in all those countries the same basic players have assured everybody from the beginning that never never would somebody be forced perform a wedding that went against their beliefs and they lieed and I have no reason to suspect that they're not going to lie here

1. Somebody will always sue.  You'll get lawsuits for not performing gay weddings, you'll get lawsuits for performing them.  The government will get sued for not issuing marriage licenses, etc...
2.  Do you have citations that people are being forced to perform weddings?  Worst I see is people suing to get to hold their wedding in their church.
3.  No real word as to whether they've been successful.

As dogmush said, it's not like they're the Borg.  Just like us, there's a variety of people and viewpoints. 

I'm starting to think that this will end with churches stopping the issuance of marriage licenses.

Churches, other than the Catholic, don't really issue them.  They'll record that they performed the wedding, and in most states a priest can sign the marriage certificate attesting that they are now married, just like a justice of the peace, county clerk, or whatever.

As I said before, you get married in a church, you get a civil union from the government.  That the latter ended up being called 'marriage' as well just muddies up the waters.

Well, nothing except biology and human practice going back to the dawn of history.  I am reminded  that a problem with progressivism, libertarianism, and other utopian creeds is that they are at war with both nature and reality.

Biology, human practice, dawn of history?  You do realize that gays have been around since then, right?  They've never been the majority outside of a few cultures(and those cultures are rather alien to our own).  That many cultures actually have spots for them?  Hell, biology wise they've identified homosexual pairings for just about every species that pair-bonds to begin with.  Homosexual Penguins, for example.  Ended up giving them an egg from a straight couple that 'weren't getting it' and were leaving the egg alone.  They took very good care of that chick.  Out in the wild they've caught them taking eggs from abandoned nests(predators always get a few...)

To be fair, so do libertarians, who have become the party of "What on our nihilistic agenda can we get gov't to enforce with the threat of violence?

You know, I keep seeing this sort of stuff and I'm reminded of a study - everybody likes to think that they're operating from a position of kindness, but their opponents are all operating from cruelty/evil. 

I'm starting to find this sorts of vague accusations given as a reason that we must deny rights, 'keep them down', and such to be very tiring.  Here you are accusing libertarians of wanting to use violent government action to get their way!

Please, stop with the vague attacks and strawmen.  What specific part of the 'nihilistic agenda' are we attempting to get the government to enforce with violence and the threat therein?

Maybe so, but homosexual pseudomarriage is not an expanded freedom.  It is an increase in intervention by gov't--in an of itself--and it has lead to the abridgment of freedom for orders of magnitude of folk more than will ever partake of its "benefits."

Hm...  Okay.  So how is gays not being able to enter into the same sort of contracts as a straight couple not an expanded freedom?  Please explain this to me. 

Also, please explaing how it's abridging your freedoms.  Please be specific, but be aware that I do not consider your ability to NOT be butthurt over them getting 'married' an abridgement.  You do NOT have the freedom to not be offended.  And that's mostly what I've been seeing here.  Now, I agree with you that the small wedding cake shop that didn't want to cater a gay wedding because of their owner/operator's beliefs shouldn't have been punished like they were.  But that's a reason to pass a law protecting small businesses when they have closely held beliefs, not to ban gay weddings.

Keep in mind that literally thousands of gay weddings happen without the gayroller coming by and generating a lawsuit.  Hell, there's probably more issues with brides not showing up, just plain lousy service, scam artists, and such.

We argue that we shouldn't be held responsible for the occasional idiot.  I'd argue that we need to extend them the same courtesy.

Kind of like those who, fortunately not here, tried to argue that gay marriage would harm the institution of marriage.