Colorado tries to find middle ground in the gay rights issue

[Mac1958]

This is interesting. Two bills being promoted right now in Colorado:

Gay marriage opponents propose 2 Colorado ballot measures - Washington Times

The first would redefine same-sex marriages as civil unions.

The second would allow wedding-related businesses opposed to gay marriage to hire a contractor to serve same-sex couples.

That sounds like reasonable middle ground. Personally, I don't care how they're defined, but the second one does allow someone to avoid being "forced" to go against their beliefs.

Good enough? Or is compromise still a dirty word?

.

 

[g5000]

COLORADO HOMO: Yes, I'd like a wedding cake, please.

COLORADO BIGOT: I contracted all AIDS-related business out, faggot. To a guy in Kansas. And his rates are three times higher.

 

[Mac1958]

COLORADO HOMO: Yes, I'd like a wedding cake, please.

COLORADO BIGOT: I contracted all AIDS-related business out, faggot. To a guy in Kansas.

Not good enough then, huh?

.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

This is interesting. Two bills being promoted right now in Colorado:

Gay marriage opponents propose 2 Colorado ballot measures - Washington Times

The first would redefine same-sex marriages as civil unions.

The second would allow wedding-related businesses opposed to gay marriage to hire a contractor to serve same-sex couples.

That sounds like reasonable middle ground. Personally, I don't care how they're defined, but the second one does allow someone to avoid being "forced" to go against their beliefs.

Good enough? Or is compromise still a dirty word?

.

Good enough? In a word, no...

 

[g5000]

The first would redefine same-sex marriages as civil unions.

Someone smart should propose a bill to redefine interracial marriages as civil unions.

Make the point this is the same bullshit, different decade.


Bigots don't get to tell other people what their marriage is.

 

[Mac1958]

This is interesting. Two bills being promoted right now in Colorado:

Gay marriage opponents propose 2 Colorado ballot measures - Washington Times

The first would redefine same-sex marriages as civil unions.

The second would allow wedding-related businesses opposed to gay marriage to hire a contractor to serve same-sex couples.

That sounds like reasonable middle ground. Personally, I don't care how they're defined, but the second one does allow someone to avoid being "forced" to go against their beliefs.

Good enough? Or is compromise still a dirty word?

.

Good enough? In a word, no...

Why not?

.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

This is interesting. Two bills being promoted right now in Colorado:

Gay marriage opponents propose 2 Colorado ballot measures - Washington Times

The first would redefine same-sex marriages as civil unions.

The second would allow wedding-related businesses opposed to gay marriage to hire a contractor to serve same-sex couples.

That sounds like reasonable middle ground. Personally, I don't care how they're defined, but the second one does allow someone to avoid being "forced" to go against their beliefs.

Good enough? Or is compromise still a dirty word?

.

Good enough? In a word, no...

Why not?

.

Separate is not equal...

 

[Syriusly]

This is interesting. Two bills being promoted right now in Colorado:

Gay marriage opponents propose 2 Colorado ballot measures - Washington Times

The first would redefine same-sex marriages as civil unions.

The second would allow wedding-related businesses opposed to gay marriage to hire a contractor to serve same-sex couples.

That sounds like reasonable middle ground. Personally, I don't care how they're defined, but the second one does allow someone to avoid being "forced" to go against their beliefs.

Good enough? Or is compromise still a dirty word?

.

The first will fail- it is not a 'compromise' it is the Conservatives approach to 'separate but equal'- and a law which the State licenses 'religious expression' is going to not even make it out of Colorado courts.

The proposed constitutional amendment regarding civil unions states, “A marriage is recognized as a form of religious expression of the people of Colorado that shall not be abridged through the state prescribing or recognizing any law that implicitly or explicitly defines a marriage in opposition or agreement with any particular religious belief.”

Any same-sex couple married before the proposed amendment takes effect or in another state would have their relationship redefined as a civil union, which carries some but not all of the legal rights of marriage.

The second part seems like a reasonable compromise. I am not aware why the law is even required- business' generally can stipulate that they may subcontract out their services.

 

[martybegan]

This is interesting. Two bills being promoted right now in Colorado:

Gay marriage opponents propose 2 Colorado ballot measures - Washington Times

The first would redefine same-sex marriages as civil unions.

The second would allow wedding-related businesses opposed to gay marriage to hire a contractor to serve same-sex couples.

That sounds like reasonable middle ground. Personally, I don't care how they're defined, but the second one does allow someone to avoid being "forced" to go against their beliefs.

Good enough? Or is compromise still a dirty word?

.

The first one is a no go, that boat has sailed.

The 2nd one is just a work around, people have to realize that not everyone will like how you live your life, and just move on.

Again, this is not systemic government organized discrimination being talked about here, so any references to the removal of Jim Crow laws is quite frankly, idiotic.

 

[Mac1958]

The second part seems like a reasonable compromise. I am not aware why the law is even required- business' generally can stipulate that they may subcontract out their services.

I suspect it's a matter of preemptively addressing an objection.

There are people who will find any loophole to intimidate and punish.

.

 

[Syriusly]

Reading the second- yeah this is not actually going to happen either

The second measure would require the state to maintain a list of businesses willing to provide services to same-sex and transgender couples, so that those opposed could contract with them.

Imagine if Colorado passed a law requiring the state to maintain a list of business's willing to provide services to African Americans?

Or to Jews?

Or to Native Americans?

Would those be 'compromises'?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

This is interesting. Two bills being promoted right now in Colorado:

Gay marriage opponents propose 2 Colorado ballot measures - Washington Times

The first would redefine same-sex marriages as civil unions.

The second would allow wedding-related businesses opposed to gay marriage to hire a contractor to serve same-sex couples.

That sounds like reasonable middle ground. Personally, I don't care how they're defined, but the second one does allow someone to avoid being "forced" to go against their beliefs.

Good enough? Or is compromise still a dirty word?

.

The first proposed bill you cited is not a compromise. Marriage has been extended to same-sex unions, as defined by the Constitution and its jurisprudence. Separate is not equal.

The second is a finicky work around that may be abused, as g5000 illustrated above.

Neither will pass, and the GOP members of the Colorado statehouse know as much. It's political theater for the base. They don't have a majority in Colorado in either house and the very pro-SSM governor would veto if it were to make it to his desk.

 

[Mac1958]

The 2nd one is just a work around, people have to realize that not everyone will like how you live your life, and just move on.

Well, that's just good enough for you-know-who.

.

 

[martybegan]

Reading the second- yeah this is not actually going to happen either

The second measure would require the state to maintain a list of businesses willing to provide services to same-sex and transgender couples, so that those opposed could contract with them.

Imagine if Colorado passed a law requiring the state to maintain a list of business's willing to provide services to African Americans?

Or to Jews?

Or to Native Americans?

Would those be 'compromises'?

or we can just let people refuse to provide non-necessary services like this at their discretion, and be done with it. Let the market handle it.

 

[Mac1958]

Obviously absolutism exists on both ends of the spectrum.

.

 

[Syriusly]

The second part seems like a reasonable compromise. I am not aware why the law is even required- business' generally can stipulate that they may subcontract out their services.

I suspect it's a matter of preemptively addressing an objection.

There are people who will find any loophole to intimidate and punish.

.

The laws are stupid- and I am betting will go nowhere.

If Coloradoans do not want business's to be punished for discriminating against gays- then just change Colorado's public accommodation laws to exclude them from its protections.

That way a business that wants to discriminate against blacks or Jews or gays- can discriminate against gays, but won't be able to discriminate against blacks or Jews.

See- that would be a compromise for those who want to discriminate.

 

[martybegan]

The 2nd one is just a work around, people have to realize that not everyone will like how you live your life, and just move on.

Well, that's just good enough for you-know-who.

.

I find it to be a work-around, not a solution, the solution is to limit PA laws to necessary or time sensitive services, (a compelling government interest) and let the rest do what they want to do.

 

[Syriusly]

Reading the second- yeah this is not actually going to happen either

The second measure would require the state to maintain a list of businesses willing to provide services to same-sex and transgender couples, so that those opposed could contract with them.

Imagine if Colorado passed a law requiring the state to maintain a list of business's willing to provide services to African Americans?

Or to Jews?

Or to Native Americans?

Would those be 'compromises'?

or we can just let people refuse to provide non-necessary services like this at their discretion, and be done with it. Let the market handle it.

see my last post.

 

[martybegan]

The second part seems like a reasonable compromise. I am not aware why the law is even required- business' generally can stipulate that they may subcontract out their services.

I suspect it's a matter of preemptively addressing an objection.

There are people who will find any loophole to intimidate and punish.

.

The laws are stupid- and I am betting will go nowhere.

If Coloradoans do not want business's to be punished for discriminating against gays- then just change Colorado's public accommodation laws to exclude them from its protections.

That way a business that wants to discriminate against blacks or Jews or gays- can discriminate against gays, but won't be able to discriminate against blacks or Jews.

See- that would be a compromise for those who want to discriminate.

The majority of those other groups seem to be smart enough to stay within their own communities when trying to get non necessary services such as cakes, and photographs done. Why are gays different?

 

[martybegan]

Reading the second- yeah this is not actually going to happen either

The second measure would require the state to maintain a list of businesses willing to provide services to same-sex and transgender couples, so that those opposed could contract with them.

Imagine if Colorado passed a law requiring the state to maintain a list of business's willing to provide services to African Americans?

Or to Jews?

Or to Native Americans?

Would those be 'compromises'?

or we can just let people refuse to provide non-necessary services like this at their discretion, and be done with it. Let the market handle it.

see my last post.

And see MY last one. Most of the other groups are A-OK with going to people who WANT to provide such services, it seems recently gays are the ones who are deciding everyone has to service them of be fined into oblivion.