Marriage is a right Let us put aside for a moment the fact that the Supreme Court has, on numerous occasions, said that marriage is a right. However, a brief review is in order: In Turner v Safley (1987), the Court refused to apply strict scutiny to a Missouri prison regulation prohibiting inmates from marrying, absent a compelling reason. Instead, the Court found the regulation failed to meet even a lowered standard of "reasonableness" that it said it would apply in evaluating the constitutionality of prison regulations. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/righttomarry.htm This is why even the likes of Charles Manson, a mass murderer who stand little chance of ever getting out of prison was granted permission to marry ( Subsequently the blushing bride came to her senses and the deal was off) Yet, until recently, two people who desired and were committed to each other, but happened to be of the same gender could not marry. How does that make sense? But, let’s focus on the meaning of the words -rights and privileges rather than the legal aspects. If marriage is not a right as some contend, then it is a privilege. There are no other possibilities. So then what is a privilege? I submit to you that a privilege is something that must be earned- something that you must demonstrate a degree of competence to engage in. Driving is a privilege. As for marriage, there is no such requirement. One must simply meet certain criteria – age, ability to consent, not to closely related, and until recently, being of the opposite sex. There is no test to take, no requirement that they prove that they will be a good spouse or that they “deserve” to be married. They can take for granted that they will be allowed to marry as long as they meet those very minimal criteria. The fact that a license is required does not, in itself make it a privilege. The license only serves to ensure that those minimal requirements are met. Now, one can lose both rights and privileges under certain circumstances but the bar is set much higher for revoking a right than it is for revoking a privilege. In the case of driving, if you are irresponsible and have accidents and get tickets, or if you have a medical condition that renders you unsafe, your driving privileges can be revoked often by administrative process for which you have no appeal.. On the other hand, while you have the right to your freedom, that to can be forfeited, but only if you are afforded due process in a court of law, convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of a serious crime, and exhaust your appeals. In the case of marriage, no third party can nullify it, not the government of anyone else for “not being good at it” or breaking the rules. The government only step in and revoke your marriage if it is found that you misrepresented your eligibility based on the aforementioned minimum criteria. Otherwise, the only role for government is to mediate and ultimately grant the desolation of the marriage. Marriage is clearly a right.
In other words, you have no response to my actual points, apart from labeling what you - in your low-information and tiny attention span 'wisdom' - label with an expletive. Apparently you aren't interested in an actual discussion of the issues. Just one-liners. We're done.
No your first point was wrong and I didn't want to read your novel. I wanted to address the point you had wrong. And I did. So your sneering arrogance not withstanding. No, i posted discussion you're just butthurt that I didn't want to read all of your post. I'm not interested. I addressed what point i wanted to. I dint care to be assaulted with sjw word salad thanks. Scamper off and cry about it.
I don't know why this always comes up. I know what the law says. I am not discussing what the law is. I am talking about what it should be.
I have 4 shotguns, 6 rifles 9 pistols. I never had a license to own one. I have a license to carry a concealed handgun on my person. Some people know very little about this.
If you give people the power to demean you, than you will be demeaned. Somebody doesn't want to serve me I don't want them getting a penny from me. That isn't demeaning.
And they shouldn't be getting your money either.Fair enough. Personally I have no problem working for gay people.I don't think what was done to those baker's was right, though.
No it isn't. It's a civil contact. You have the right to enter civil contacts. You do not have the right to civil contracts. Again rights ate negative in nature.
The baker in Oregon was fined for publishing personal info on social media. The lesbian couple wrote a bad review. The bakery got pissed. In thay case both of those idiots deserve each other. However there are other cases that are what the Oregon bakery tried to be. And that's wrong. Memories pizza, that mechanic that posted his retardedness online they had the right to do that. I don't give companies I don't like my money. Sometimes it means doing without certain things. It's like these people don't have an idea what a capitalist economy is.
What it should be, I would like for people to stop being bigots against others. This world would be a much better place and discussions like these would be unneeded. I do think your ideal scenario of free for all discrimination would cause a myriad of social problems mainly harming minorities of all races and religions. I understand the freedom aspect of it but I look at it as the business owner took steps to enter the public market - and thus should abide by that action.
Wasn't trying to be educational. Just want to make sure we are talking Apples to apples - - - Updated - - - Well they do, how else would you know?
So you're saying that you have the right to enter into contracts in general, but not to any certain kind of contract? Now you're just obfuscating the issue and I'm not even going to go there. The fact is that it does not negate anything that I have said about why it is not a "privilege" and therefore MUST be a right. For some reason that's beyond me, you have the need to believe otherwise. I don't believe that people are still struggling with this at this late date. Rather pointless I should say.
Well I completely agree with that. But again I'm talking about what the law should be. I'm not opposed completely to government interference, but it should be merited. Now no gas station within 50 miles allowing a Jewish person to fill up is a problem where law needs to step in. In that same hand I don't think preemptive laws are appropriate.
You didn't argue squat. When people start using words like "butthurt" and "sjw" it's a sure sign that it's time to end the conversation. Buh-bye!
They were not fined for publishing information online nor is posting information online illegal by either side.
I'm pretty sure you're wrong on that.Posting private information (Names and addresses,phone numbers) online IS illegal.
No. You don't have the right to anything. Rights are negative in nature. You have the freedom from things
Yes I did. You said marriage was a right. I said no it wasn't. I'm sorry you are offended. You could argue the point and leave the personal crap out of it if you wanted to.
Seriously? I explained what the right entails, but you couldn't be bothered to read what I wrote. "no it isn't" is not an attempt at actual argument and discussion. I have no reason to believe you are. I did argue the point. You wouldn't read it, and insulted me by characterizing what you couldn't be bothered to read as an expletive. So you deserved exactly the response from me that you received. You're the one who got "butthurt" and then compounded your previous insult with more of the same. So why would I waste any more time on you? Answer: I'm not going to. Find someone else.
It doesn't matter. Marriage isn't a right. Yes it is. I'd use that same attuned if somebody tried to tell me the sky was orange. No matter if they wrote a ten book series on the subject it still wouldn't make it orange. Show me where it is in the constitution. I couldn't give a (*)(*)(*)(*). All of your typing doesn't Make something a right the constitution does. If you posted a constitutional amendment that shows it to be a right than it would make sense. Again sombody could write a 10 book series on any the sky is orange and it wouldn't matter. If you're offended by the dismissal of non argumentative writing, perhaps debate isn't the place for you You are welcome to put me on ignore.
Since you didn't even read what I wrote, the idea that you can honestly characterize it as "non-argumentative" is completely laughable. You're the one engaged in "non-argumentative writing". Oh, and: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” That's the 9th amendment; it was a response to concerns that the enumeration of certain rights in the Bill of Rights would be misconstrued as being an all-inclusive list, in order to deny or disparage people's unenumerated rights. Which is exactly the exercise you're engaging in. The Constitution doesn't grant rights. They would exist whether or not they were listed in the Constitution. Your wish is granted, as I have no time for one-liner agitators who think "is not" and repetition qualify as a persuasive form of argument.
No, I read what i called non argumentative. The original post I responded to, I took issue with the supposition. No,I'm actually just trying to argue your premise. You don't like that. Never cared about persuasion. I'm more interested in arguing facts. But if you can't take it ill understand.
That first post does include arguments. All you did was react with an brief opinion that didn't address my points at all. The second post (which provided further argument) you wouldn't even read. Since you think "is not" constitutes a responsive argument, it's not surprising that you can't recognize actual arguments. OMG - doesn't even realize that "arguing facts" is about persuasion. What would even be the point, otherwise? To puff up your ego by declaring that you're right and the other guy is wrong? What a joke! Not matter of not being able to take it. It's a matter of you providing sub-standard responses that are a waste of everyone's time.
