How to discriminate legally

[MechAg94]

I hadn't noticed anyone suing a pastor to force them to perform a wedding in the US yet, but I think it is only a matter of time.  The activists are headed that direction.

[Hawkmoon]

I hadn't noticed anyone suing a pastor to force them to perform a wedding in the US yet, but I think it is only a matter of time.  The activists are headed that direction.

It did happen, I think in Nevada. But it was a somewhat unique case. The man was (is, I guess) a properly ordained Christian minister, but he operated a for-profit wedding chapel, he wasn't serving as the pastor of a regular church. The court ruled that his chapel was a place of public accommodation, not a church, and therefore he couldn't discriminate.

[Ron]

All the homophilia in society isn't really the problem.

It's just a downstream result of a much more malignant disease. 

Organizing society around a mechanistic secular anti-philosophy view of reality will debase our culture even more than our current masturbation and butt sex culture and will create horrific travesties even more disgusting and dehumanizing than our abortion mills.

 

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Interesting perspective on the gay rights movements.
https://womenagainstfeminismuk.wordpress.com/2015/09/05/gays-against-the-homosexual-agenda-and-gay-marriage-2/


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Ron]

Interesting perspective on the gay rights movements.
https://womenagainstfeminismuk.wordpress.com/2015/09/05/gays-against-the-homosexual-agenda-and-gay-marriage-2/


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yep, gay relationships aren't really the same as normal relationships no matter how much the progressives on the right and left insist otherwise.

A very small percentage of homosexuals actually pursue marriage.

Of them the overwhelming percentage of homosexual marriages are lesbian marriages.

Gay men might talk a good game about wanting LTR's but in the end the high rates of disease and the tiny percentage who actually get married tell a different story.

[Firethorn]

Organizing society around a mechanistic secular anti-philosophy view of reality will debase our culture even more than our current masturbation and butt sex culture and will create horrific travesties even more disgusting and dehumanizing than our abortion mills.

Pilling up buzzwords doesn't help, and isn't really an argument

For example, I find "Social Justice Warriors", professional butthurts on behalf of other people, to be a much bigger issue.  For example, they got all butthurt over the 'cultural appropriation' because a Mexican restaurant was giving out free plastic miniature sombreros.  They got upset over a college student dressing up as a Marachi, said he was appropriating Mexican culture, was all ready to censure him and make him attend special classes.  He pointed out that he's a Venezuelan student(might be the wrong SA country) and that he was dressed up as a Venezuelan Marachi.  I kinda wish he'd broken down in tears then about their inability to tell the difference...

It did happen, I think in Nevada. But it was a somewhat unique case. The man was (is, I guess) a properly ordained Christian minister, but he operated a for-profit wedding chapel, he wasn't serving as the pastor of a regular church. The court ruled that his chapel was a place of public accommodation, not a church, and therefore he couldn't discriminate.

Hmm...  Do you have a citation for that?  Thus far, it's just hearsay.  If true, what probably broke him was that, like you said, no congregation and he was probably marrying everybody up until that point anyways.

Interesting perspective on the gay rights movements.
https://womenagainstfeminismuk.wordpress.com/2015/09/05/gays-against-the-homosexual-agenda-and-gay-marriage-2/

Interesting, yes, but still only a single source.  Personal anecdote.

A very small percentage of homosexuals actually pursue marriage.

Is it really fair to ding them when we don't even have a good decade of open research, and hell, the number of gays in total is somewhat in question even today?

Of them the overwhelming percentage of homosexual marriages are lesbian marriages.

Should we deny them their marriages in order to block the guys?

Gay men might talk a good game about wanting LTR's but in the end the high rates of disease and the tiny percentage who actually get married tell a different story.

Then shouldn't we support those that do?  Also, what does "LTR" stand for in this context?

[Ron]

LTR = long term relationship(s)

As I mentioned earlier. This issue is a downstream result of bigger problems with our culture.

Sort of like a death rattle cough of a dying person.

[KD5NRH]

For example, I find "Social Justice Warriors", professional butthurts on behalf of other people, to be a much bigger issue.  For example, they got all butthurt over the 'cultural appropriation' because a Mexican restaurant was giving out free plastic miniature sombreros. 

And yet, where's their outrage over the paper pirate hats at Long John Silver?  McDonald's appropriates clown culture with impunity.

[erictank]

  There's nothing religious about the fact that marriage is heterosexual. You're the one who keeps bringing religion into it. Empirically, factually; cultures with differing attitudes about sex, sexuality, religion, and everything else still know/knew that marriage is predicated on a heterosexual relationship (even when individual participants were homosexual).

"A perfect marriage of form and function," "A harmonious marriage of perfect ingredients resulting in a product greater than the sum of its parts," "A marriage of components providing both strength and reduced weight,".

I've seen all of these uses of the word marriage, and many, MANY others, in just my lifetime. 

The term covers far more than simply a religious, or even secular, ceremony joining two peoples' lives together.

Heterosexuality has about nothing to do with any of them.

Arguing that the word means precisely one thing ignores the fact that it's NEVER meant just that one thing.

[Perd Hapley]

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.

And virtually all of those marriage traditions required at least one member of each sex. It's almost as if there were something other than religion, something unaffected by religious beliefs, that made heterosexual pairings different from homosexual pairings, regardless of anyone's moral approval or condemnation of the latter. So do you see why it's hard to blame religion for limiting marriage to opposite-sex relationships? It's a bit like blaming religion for all those misguided laws that penalize theft, and murder, and embezzlement.

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?

You've got two issues going on here, and I refuse to decide one on the basis of the other.

On the one hand, you have people irrationally demanding that obvious non-marriages (non-marrriages, because they exclude one of the sexes) be legally regarded as marriages. That's idiotic on its face, but many have bought into it.

On the other hand, we have the idea that government doesn't need to recognize or enforce marriage. I'm open to the idea, but acting on it right now has too much the flavor or blackmail. Let's first stop entertaining obvious falsehoods about marriage (see above), and then we'll be able to think clearly about the costs and benefits of having Hawkmoon sign off on our marriages.

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!'

As I've pointed out before, no argument is possible against a non sequitur. The "argument" in favor is merely one of assertion.

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?

I don't recall saying you were a liberal.

[KD5NRH]

"A marriage of components providing both strength and reduced weight,"

Lousy metaphor; I have yet to see a marriage of any sort result in weight reduction.

[Perd Hapley]

"A perfect marriage of form and function," "A harmonious marriage of perfect ingredients resulting in a product greater than the sum of its parts," "A marriage of components providing both strength and reduced weight,".

I've seen all of these uses of the word marriage, and many, MANY others, in just my lifetime. 

The term covers far more than simply a religious, or even secular, ceremony joining two peoples' lives together.

Heterosexuality has about nothing to do with any of them.

Arguing that the word means precisely one thing ignores the fact that it's NEVER meant just that one thing.

Did you really just try to claim that figurative uses of the word " marriage " should tell us how an actual marriage (the thing, not the word) works? This is why I can't take you people seriously. If you'd really like to go there, I'll just point out why "marriage" is so often used that way. It's because marriage is a pairing of two unlike things. Hence the impossibility of same-sex "marriage."

[KD5NRH]

Did you really just try to claim that figurative uses of the word " marriage " should tell us how an actual marriage (the thing, not the word) works?

Of course, because no one would ever stretch metaphors, like calling a virgin a motherf____, or anything not actually composed of feces a piece of s___.

[zxcvbob]

Hmm...  Do you have a citation for that?  Thus far, it's just hearsay.  If true, what probably broke him was that, like you said, no congregation and he was probably marrying everybody up until that point anyways.

Does the Washington Times count?  (Idaho, not Nevada)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/20/idaho-citys-ordinance-tells-pastors-to-marry-gays-/

Also there's the Los Vegas Review-Journal, but they are talking in hypotheticals rather than actual cases.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada/wedding-chapels-can-t-say-no-same-sex-marriages-aclu-warns

[KD5NRH]

Does the Washington Times count?  (Idaho, not Nevada)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/20/idaho-citys-ordinance-tells-pastors-to-marry-gays-/

Can't recall which ordinance I was looking at, but at least one of them was worded such that it sure sounded like you could get around it by saying "we will happily marry a gay man and a lesbian to each other, but we don't perform same-sex marriages."  The language was very specific about prohibiting denying the person, rather than the specific service.

[Firethorn]

LTR = long term relationship(s)

Thanks.  I'm always amazed at the overlap in acronyms.  Still remember a briefing by the guard about their operations - every TLA they used we had a computer one that used the same letters.  Caused some hilarity in the "mad libs" sense.

As I mentioned earlier. This issue is a downstream result of bigger problems with our culture.

Sort of like a death rattle cough of a dying person.

Eh, I figure that we're stronger than that.  Every generation swears they're dying culturally.  If not their own, the ones after them.

And virtually all of those marriage traditions required at least one member of each sex.

"Almost" goes a long ways though.  I'm not suggesting that we get rid of heterosexual marriage, require gay marriage to be in the majority or anything.

It's almost as if there were something other than religion, something unaffected by religious beliefs, that made heterosexual pairings different from homosexual pairings, regardless of anyone's moral approval or condemnation of the latter.

Well yeah, biology made most of us straight.  

So do you see why it's hard to blame religion for limiting marriage to opposite-sex relationships? It's a bit like blaming religion for all those misguided laws that penalize theft, and murder, and embezzlement.

I'm not blaming them for the limitation.  I'm blaming them for seeking to continue the prohibition in the government realm even as they enter conflict with other religions that support gay marriage.

On the one hand, you have people irrationally demanding that obvious non-marriages (non-marrriages, because they exclude one of the sexes) be legally regarded as marriages. That's idiotic on its face, but many have bought into it.

You're defining marriage using your own terms, and appealing to tradition.  As Eric said, there's a lot more to 'marriage' than just 'one man one woman'.  

Other than that, I'm going to have to ask again:  Where is it harming you?  Why does every marriage have to conform to the majority?  Hell, other than your being upset about gays getting the same ability as you, specifically to marry somebody they actually want to have sex with, how is it even really affecting you?

On the other hand, we have the idea that government doesn't need to recognize or enforce marriage. I'm open to the idea, but acting on it right now has too much the flavor or blackmail. Let's first stop entertaining obvious falsehoods about marriage (see above), and then we'll be able to think clearly about the costs and benefits of having Hawkmoon sign off on our marriages.

Like I've said before, marriage, to the government, is a contract.  It's a very hefty contract that affects a person's taxes, benefits(surviving spouse payments, for example), insurance(healthcare).  It amounts to two people signing up for a new default will, inheritance, medical power of attorney, burial benefits, child care, etc...

As we're seeing in today's society, marriage is not a requirement for reproduciton, nor is many marriages about reproduction either; plenty of non-reproductive marriages between men and women.

I once read that a lawyer estimated that attempting to cover all of the aspects of marriage using non-marriage contracts would run between $10k and $30k and still wouldn't catch everything, while most marriage certificates are under $100.

As I've pointed out before, no argument is possible against a non sequitur. The "argument" in favor is merely one of assertion.

What's the non-sequitur?  

I don't recall saying you were a liberal.

Others have accused me of such.

[Firethorn]

Does the Washington Times count?  (Idaho, not Nevada)
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/20/idaho-citys-ordinance-tells-pastors-to-marry-gays-/

Also there's the Los Vegas Review-Journal, but they are talking in hypotheticals rather than actual cases.
http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/nevada/wedding-chapels-can-t-say-no-same-sex-marriages-aclu-warns

Hmm...  Can anybody really say that a Vegas wedding chapel isn't a commercial businesses?

As for the city ordinance, I hope it gets shot down.

[makattak]

Eh, I figure that we're stronger than that.  Every generation swears they're dying culturally.  If not their own, the ones after them.

No, not every culture swears that. And, a lot of those who were concerned about their culture dying were right. Oftentimes, it just took longer than they foresaw.

Further, a whole lot of those prophets were Cassandras, because no one wanted to listen.

It's ok, though, it was just bad luck that wiped those tribes off their icefields and made the lights go out in Rome. I'm sure we won't be in for any of that.

[KD5NRH]

Hmm...  Can anybody really say that a Vegas wedding chapel isn't a commercial businesses?

Don't really care; it's not financed by the public, so it's still someone's property, purchased, improved and maintained by the fruits of their own labor, that they deserve to be able to limit the use of by any criteria they care to apply.  This isn't a pub on a desolate road which would put someone at risk of starvation if they were refused, so there's no legitimate societal need to force them to serve everyone.  As long as there are competitors, the market will deal with the issue. 

[Firethorn]

Don't really care; it's not financed by the public, so it's still someone's property, purchased, improved and maintained by the fruits of their own labor, that they deserve to be able to limit the use of by any criteria they care to apply.  This isn't a pub on a desolate road which would put someone at risk of starvation if they were refused, so there's no legitimate societal need to force them to serve everyone.  As long as there are competitors, the market will deal with the issue. 

I agree, actually.  Sometimes I forget to point this stuff out when I'm only really looking to point out a technical difference.

I said earlier that I'm for businesses being able to set their rules.  Though if they're not going to serve certain customers they should probably be forced to put that on a sign at the entrance and/or on any advertisements so said people don't waste their time messing with them.

[erictank]

Lousy metaphor; I have yet to see a marriage of any sort result in weight reduction.

[Firethorn]

You screwed up your attempt at the image:

[Perd Hapley]

What's the non-sequitur?

A "marriage" that only includes one sex. It is nonsensical.

"Almost" goes a long ways though.  I'm not suggesting that we get rid of heterosexual marriage, require gay marriage to be in the majority or anything.

Well yeah, biology made most of us straight.  

I'm not blaming them for the limitation.  I'm blaming them for seeking to continue the prohibition in the government realm even as they enter conflict with other religions that support gay marriage.

First of all, there wasn't a "prohibition," except in the sense that the people in some of the states made their governments agree with you, by officially not caring about same-sex unions. Those state governments were prohibited from intervening in same-sex relationships. There was no prohibition on anyone's individual right to have such unions privately; have "weddings," etc.

Secondly, the minority status of homosexuals is not the most obvious explanation for the almost total lack of same-sex marriage in human history. And there's really nothing about minority status that would keep people from recognizing same-sex unions. The simple fact is that there is no reason for anyone to "care" about same-sex unions, because they have no particular impact on anyone else. This differs from opposite-sex unions, for obvious reasons.

You're defining marriage using your own terms...

  False.

, and appealing to tradition.

Pffft. And you're appealing to what, exactly?

As Eric said, there's a lot more to 'marriage' than just 'one man one woman'.

As we've seen, Eric's argument was garbage. Also, I've said nothing about the number of partners. I'm talking about the genders involved.

Other than that, I'm going to have to ask again:  Where is it harming you?  Why does every marriage have to conform to the majority?  Hell, other than your being upset about gays getting the same ability as you, specifically to marry somebody they actually want to have sex with, how is it even really affecting you?

 He keeps going on about this. He's obviously reading nothing I say, so what does it even matter what I say here?  kumquat sally ontology breakfast Right?

Hello?!

It's because homosexual couplings do not affect me, or anyone else, that I. Want. You. And. Your. Government. To. Stay. Out. Of. It. Please repeat the phrase "fistful does not want government to intervene in same-sex relationships," if you read and comprehended what I just said. Thank you.

Also, no one has any new "ability" as a result of Obergefell, unless you count the ability to scam the government with a new class of fake marriages. I could do the same, if I wanted to. It would just get in the way of my real marriage, is all.

Like I've said before, marriage, to the government, is a contract.  It's a very hefty contract that affects a person's taxes, benefits(surviving spouse payments, for example), insurance(healthcare).  It amounts to two people signing up for a new default will, inheritance, medical power of attorney, burial benefits, child care, etc...

Blah, blah, blah; that doesn't explain why marriage should be expanded to cover non-marital relationships.

As we're seeing in today's society, marriage is not a requirement for reproduciton[sic]...

Are you trying to say that reproduction is not a requirement for marriage? Because marriage has never really been a requirement for reproduction.

Also, FWIW, I've been in a childless marriage for over ten years, now. The thing is, heterosexual relationships naturally result in children. Homosexual relationships don't naturally result in children, and there's no reason to expect or want them to. That wouldn't make sense.

Others have accused me of such.

Cool story, bro.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Wallet got 80 k lighter when wife 1 escaped.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[T.O.M.]

Discussion overheard between two divorce lawyers.

"I saw you on the news at the same sex marriage rally."
"Yep.  I support it."
"But you're straight, and Catholic."
"And I'm a divorce lawyer.  Gay marriage means gay divorce.  Most have two incomes, no kids, and lots of money to spend on attorney fees when the marriage goes to hell."

For the record, I could care less about gay marriage.   Got other things that matter more to me to worry y about.