A Simple Question for Those Are Still Opposed to Same Sex Marriage

Again knowing that he is gone....

Laws are not immutable. Laws are created, change and go away. Any claim that because it is law, something cannot be changed is idiotic at best.

 

How many times have I already made that observation? The law can be changed at will. The REAL problem is allowing the Courts to redefine the English language.

 

People have a right to their opinions. Governments do not. I support shop/small business owners selecting their clientele no matter how stupid a business decision it is. However, I also see that "We, the People" through government have an interest in promoting harmony. Forcing people to act one way is wrong, IMO, but persuading them is fine. In this case, only supplying government-backed small business loans to businesses which comply with regulations would be both in keeping with the 14th Amendment and avoiding being "the morality police".

 

I would feel terrible if a shop owner refused to let me in because I am a Jew ...I’m sorry you fell that is ok

 

The difference between you and me; I don't feel it's okay, but I also do not feel it's okay to empower government to dictate morality to a disarmed and subjugated population.

 

they haven't had that freedom since the Civil Rights Act.

go ahead and tell black people you don't serve them.

it should be yes but it isn't the Civil Rights Act says you don't have that right.

I don't know what psychic you're talking to that tells you what I think but I can tell you they're a quack.

My thinking is that if you break the laws outlined in the Civil Rights Act that you're going to face some legal trouble.

it's better than that there are bakeries that have a niche market where they particularly serve gay people and Jewish people and Muslims.

I wasn't going to go all Jim Crow whatever that means.

so you should support repealing at least part of the Civil Rights Act.

The precedents is set I have a feeling that this is coming.

 

So you think we should be allowed to segregate black peoole like the good old days? You sound like you condone immorality as long as government has no say. We just have different values

 

No. Your assumptions are interesting since you always project evil in others and never see what they are actually are.

 

I keep hearing this 'can't legislate morality' meme. Absolutely every criminal statute I can think of is an attempt to codify a moral code. The power to legislate at all, lies in the premise that morality is at least in the extremes, to be dictated by government. As for the rest, a lot depends on how you define the verb 'to subjugate'.

 

When you open your doors to conduct business with the public, you cannot simultaneously claim private property as the mood seizes you.
You oftentimes parrot these views, Bigotry and Racism is never legal especially not in any business.

If baking cakes is your normal business, you do not get to deny a Black person a cake you normally sell to White people.
Or deny a cake to a Mexican, McDonald's and Burger King have internal policies preventing racism and bigotry.

 

Her debate style reminds me of Kathy Newman in that channel for debate with Jordan Peterson. It's interesting if you have a half hour to kill basically Jordan Peterson would say something you know make a statement or claim. Then Kathy Newman would misrepresent it.

That's actually, if you didn't know, the definition of a straw man fallacy.

 

It's really telling..... the people that devote their lives to this topic, that is.

 

Now you're being judgemental.

 

The English language is redefined regularly. Unless it is your assertion that homosexuals are not gay.

So what? You set your profile line to say "banned" because....

 

There is a major difference between what one feels is ok or right, and what one feels should be a person right to choose to do. Quite honestly people should have the right to be ********s and bigots within their private businesses. Of course we then have the right to not shop them or protest them.

 

First off morality, and by extension, immorality, are subjective values. Many believe that allowing SSM, and transsexual rights is condoning immorality. So that particular argument is rather moot.

As to the first part, the implication I read in it is that we would once again make segregation a legal institution, as opposed to individual choice. Remember that many Jim Crow era laws denied business owners the right to choose for themselves if they would segregate or not. So a business owner could not have mixed facilities even if he wanted to. The freedom to choose whom you do business with would not lead back to segregation or "the good old days", because 1) we are at a point where too many people would rather have the mixed custom, and 2) the ability would be there to exclude majority demographics as well. Additionally it is only business owners for who this violate right belongs to. Government does not have the right to choose whom it will do business with. They are to be for all citizens.

 

As Reagan stated, "Government exists to protect us from each other." Making murder and rape illegal is not a moral judgement, it's to protect citizens from each other. OTOH, making drugs illegal is a moral choice. Making women cover their breasts is a moral choice. It's one thing to say it's illegal to commit suicide in a way that endangers others such as jumping off a building, but to make it illegal period? A moral choice.

 

For once we are in basic agreement. The government on one hand tells us that there is a separation of church and state. Then they harass and intimidate churches that frown on same sex marriage, inter-racial marriage, etc. They audit them incessantly; revoke their non-profit status; do everything imaginable to put them out of business. The government tells the Mormons that polygamy is wrong. WTH happened to their separation of church and state then??? That concept isn't even in the Constitution.

For years I tried to do a grass roots campaign to promote the very line of reasoning that you offered as it relates to immigration. Allow the employer to hire anyone they damn well please, but tax them as it was before Trump handed big business an unearned tax break. If a business hires an all American staff they could get a tax break and if they take people off welfare, the unemployment line, disability, etc. they get a tax break. It gives the people the opportunity to run their lives as they see fit, provided they pay for it themselves.

When it comes to same sex marriage (sic) the concept is defined in our English language. It is the union of one man and one woman. Courts do not have the authority to redefine the English language. Allowing the Courts to redefine the English language is not within the purview of their constitutional authority. The institution of marriage exists for a very specific societal reason. It has NOTHING to do with who a person hops in the sack with at this stage in American history.

 

I disagree with you on the drug issue. A pregnant woman who uses drugs can cause her child to become a drug addict. What "choice" did the child have? The person who smokes a joint while operating an automobile is impaired and causes an accident that takes the life of one of your family members didn't have the Right... maybe you'd like to tell your spouse or kids how much their life is worth in this philosophical discussion.

 

Notice the difference; the line is drawn between a person who only harms his or herself and a person who harms others.

RW authoritarians and LW authoritarians each seek to dictate morality. Their only difference is the morality each are seeking to dictate.

 

If a business is open to the public, it is no longer “private”
I think you underestimate bigots and I think you underestimate the pain of the victims of bigotry...

 

Oh but demeaning gay people isn’t judgmental??

 

Let's go with your assertion for a moment. Do you feel that stores are breaking the law when they prohibit customers from carrying their firearms onto the premises?

 

I understand what you're saying, but it didn't answer my question.

My mother was a smoker. Of her four children, ALL of us had issues with asthma / bronchitis. Two of my siblings are smokers and my older sister died very young of cancer. Virtually every doctor that appealed to her to quit smoking said that her children had disorders most likely related to her habit.

 

Isn't that why smoking in bars is illegal? Because second-hand smoke harms others? Again, making it illegal to smoke is a moral choice, but preventing harm to others, including one's own kids, is protecting others from harm.

Now consider this. A man likes skydiving. However, it does have dangers. His wife is against it because if he dies, he can't provide money to buy her things. Should skydiving be illegal for married men? I say no, but you seem to be saying yes.