Legalize discrimination for same sex weddings

[Silhouette]

I just prefer my debates to be to the point, each item discussed as succinctly as possible. To me this is background stuff when I'm doing other things, like a sorbet to clear the palate.

Totally. Currently I'm jarring applesauce. Do the same thing. Touch base now and then like anyone does with Facebook. Only don't do Facebook, Twitter or any of that garbage. This time is my guilty pleasure/pain in the ass... lol...

 

[Silhouette]

If they say they don't discriminate, they are held legally to that standard. As long as they disclose it, they can discriminate against gays, Muslims, straights, Christians, Baptists, left handed, soda jerks, whatever. Then the market can decide who they want to deal with

No, because it would open them up to harassment. I've contemplated opening a business when this crap is settled in favor of the enumerated rights (religion) against those not named in the Constitution (butt sex calling itself married and thereby depriving children of a mother for life...could not even be remotely construed as present or protected behavior in the Constitution).

 

[kaz]

If they say they don't discriminate, they are held legally to that standard. As long as they disclose it, they can discriminate against gays, Muslims, straights, Christians, Baptists, left handed, soda jerks, whatever. Then the market can decide who they want to deal with

No, because it would open them up to harassment. I've contemplated opening a business when this crap is settled in favor of the enumerated rights (religion) against those not named in the Constitution (butt sex calling itself married and thereby depriving children of a mother for life...could not even be remotely construed as present or protected behavior in the Constitution).

Agreed, but there is nothing granting the power to limit the rights of gays either

 

[Silhouette]

Agreed, but there is nothing granting the power to limit the rights of gays either

Gays don't have special rights because they cannot legally be a class of people. There's nothing enumerated in the Constitution giving special protections to anyone based on their aberrant behaviors. The only behaviors I know of specified for protection under the US Constitution are the right to bear arms and the right to practice one's faith. Ass sex, bulimia, drug addiction...none of them are mentioned in the Constitution. There is no such legal thing as "gays". There are only people across all races and both genders doing aberrant things with their hoo-hoos. That does not make a special class of people.

The 7th circuit federal court of appeals just echoed those sentiments. They said this year that homosexuals or sexual orientation (behavior) is not covered under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That's a very gentle way of saying they are also not covered under any measurable stretch of the wording of the US Constitution, nor under any whisper of intent within it from the Founding Fathers; or Congress since then. Congress is the only entity who may amend the Constitution and so far there's nothing there about homosexuals or marriage..

The USSC will tell you Obergefell was about same-sex marriage, not "gay" marriage. And that is because if they said it was about "gay" marriage, they'd run into all the legal snags I just mentioned. However, making "same-sex" marriage legal, stripped children of either a mother or father for life via a new contractual term....to their proximate detriment. And that isn't allowed to be done under the Infancy Doctrine. So, any state may legally choose to do anything they like on marrying "gays" or "same-sex" people, in the interest of protecting children; since Obergefell is not a legal Ruling.

States not only CAN deny same-sex marriage on behalf of children...federal law compels them to always default in favor of children when a harm to them is perceived. Legally removing even the hope of a mother or father for life from a child as a contractual term is a direct harm to that child's mind and person.

 

[kaz]

Agreed, but there is nothing granting the power to limit the rights of gays either

Gays don't have special rights because they cannot legally be a class of people. There's nothing enumerated in the Constitution giving special protections to anyone based on their aberrant behaviors. The only behaviors I know of specified for protection under the US Constitution are the right to bear arms and the right to practice one's faith. Ass sex, bulimia, drug addiction...none of them are mentioned in the Constitution. There is no such legal thing as "gays". There are only people across all races and both genders doing aberrant things with their hoo-hoos. That does not make a special class of people.

The 7th circuit federal court of appeals just echoed those sentiments. They said this year that homosexuals or sexual orientation (behavior) is not covered under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That's a very gentle way of saying they are also not covered under any measurable stretch of the wording of the US Constitution, nor under any whisper of intent within it from the Founding Fathers; or Congress since then. Congress is the only entity who may amend the Constitution and so far there's nothing there about homosexuals or marriage..

The USSC will tell you Obergefell was about same-sex marriage, not "gay" marriage. And that is because if they said it was about "gay" marriage, they'd run into all the legal snags I just mentioned. However, making "same-sex" marriage legal, stripped children of either a mother or father for life via a new contractual term....to their proximate detriment. And that isn't allowed to be done under the Infancy Doctrine. So, any state may legally choose to do anything they like on marrying "gays" or "same-sex" people, in the interest of protecting children; since Obergefell is not a legal Ruling.

States not only CAN deny same-sex marriage on behalf of children...federal law compels them to always default in favor of children when a harm to them is perceived. Legally removing even the hope of a mother or father for life from a child as a contractual term is a direct harm to that child's mind and person.

I said the Federal government can't limit their rights. How does that mean they have a special class of rights? Bad time of the month?

 

[Silhouette]

I said the Federal government can't limit their rights. How does that mean they have a special class of rights?

They have the same rights as everyone else, not special ones granted for aberrant behaviors. Marriage like driving has qualifiers. It still does. Obergefell was illegal for a half dozen solid reasons. A car can't be driven by a blind person and a marriage cannot be missing a mother or father. Children could get hurt otherwise. Hence the requirement for state licensing...not 5 liberal pocket-Justices in DC.

 

[kaz]

I said the Federal government can't limit their rights. How does that mean they have a special class of rights?

They have the same rights as everyone else, not special ones granted for aberrant behaviors. Marriage like driving has qualifiers. It still does. Obergefell was illegal for a half dozen solid reasons. A car can't be driven by a blind person and a marriage cannot be missing a mother or father. Children could get hurt otherwise. Hence the requirement for state licensing...not 5 liberal pocket-Justices in DC.

Not sure what you're not getting in my view gays deserve no more nor less rights than anyone else. You have questions about your heterosexuality?

 

[Silhouette]

Not sure what you're not getting in my view gays deserve no more nor less rights than anyone else.

Not to marry where states say one man, one woman.. Obergefell has no legitimate citation to supersede state laws on marriage. Especially now that the 7th circuit has laid the ground for overturning based on a false premise.

 

[kaz]

Not sure what you're not getting in my view gays deserve no more nor less rights than anyone else.

Not to marry where states say one man, one woman.. Obergefell has no legitimate citation to supersede state laws on marriage. Especially now that the 7th circuit has laid the ground for overturning based on a false premise.

Well, I don't support gay marriage and didn't say that I did. I just said gays should have the same rights as the rest of us. You're straight, can you marry another woman?

Though actually I don't support any government marriage nor the right of government to decide who's married. Government should treat all it's citizens the same. Marriage should be a private affair. Government marriage is all about government treating its citizens differently

 

[Pop23]

Discriminating against providing services for same sex weddings should be legal, with the stipulation that businesses must conspicuously provide notice on their physical storefronts and websites. This solution should be preferred by both conservatives and liberals alike.

I'm a wedding professional and the three most common questions prospective clients ask me (in order) are the following:

Are you available on this date?
What is your price?
Do you serve same sex weddings?

I am more than happy to provide service to same sex couples. I probably lose 1 prospect a month because of the first question. I lose 2-3 prospects a month because of my answer to the second question. I have never lost a booking because of my answer to the third question. Willingness to serve same sex couples has become the single most ubiquitous expectation among engaged couples in the market for wedding services. Approximately 75% of today's client market will refuse to do business with a vendor who is unwilling to serve same sex couples; though most report that they did not think to ask most of their vendors.

So let's let the money do the speaking.

It's really even easier then a sign. Just don't supply wedding cakes to the new market know as same sex weddings.

Don't bake the cakes for homosexuals or straights that desire such a cake.

Understand, it's same sex marriage, not gay or homosexual marriage. Heterosexuals have the same right to marry their own as homosexuals.

Problem solved and everyone's happy, Right?

 

[Silhouette]

Not sure what you're not getting in my view gays deserve no more nor less rights than anyone else.

Not to marry where states say one man, one woman.. Obergefell has no legitimate citation to supersede state laws on marriage. Especially now that the 7th circuit has laid the ground for overturning based on a false premise.

Well, I don't support gay marriage and didn't say that I did. I just said gays should have the same rights as the rest of us. You're straight, can you marry another woman?

Though actually I don't support any government marriage nor the right of government to decide who's married. Government should treat all it's citizens the same. Marriage should be a private affair. Government marriage is all about government treating its citizens differently

Well that's not what US v Windsor Found in 2013. It Found that the right to determine who may or may not marry unarguably rests with the states sovereignty. And they reiterated that point 56 times in the language of that Opinion. So while Obergefell forced all 50 states to ratify motherless/fatherless marriages in 2015, people like polygamists, incest etc. still have their children living without the benefits of marriage because states can still cite Windsor to deny them....somehow...even though they too could claim a legitimate sexual orientation as viable as two women having sex with a dildo...telling kids involved "this is new style mom and dad now"... How devastating that must be to a boy's psyche: "you're replaceable utterly, even in your most fundamental function". By the time he reaches adolescence that lesson will be within his bone marrow. (Don't worry, most of these boys probably won't grow up to be serial killers of women)

You see, the states are involved in marriage because marriage is the bedrock from which all its future adult citizens are fledged. So states have an intrinsic right to see to marriages that serve children more than the adults involved. Hence the reason for the licensing. Otherwise you could marry your dog and make children call him "dad"..Psychological damage (gay marriage) or physical damage (incest marriage) to a fledgling citizen makes them extremely expensive as adults to any state they live in. States predict prison stays, court system costs, institutionalization and healthcare costs skyrocketing in direct proportion to how much a child was damaged early on. So states have a right to be licensing the nursery where their benefits or woes are hatched.

Ah, the far-seeing wisdom of Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Kagan! Such TITANS of Judicial Wisdom!

 

[kaz]

Not sure what you're not getting in my view gays deserve no more nor less rights than anyone else.

Not to marry where states say one man, one woman.. Obergefell has no legitimate citation to supersede state laws on marriage. Especially now that the 7th circuit has laid the ground for overturning based on a false premise.

Well, I don't support gay marriage and didn't say that I did. I just said gays should have the same rights as the rest of us. You're straight, can you marry another woman?

Though actually I don't support any government marriage nor the right of government to decide who's married. Government should treat all it's citizens the same. Marriage should be a private affair. Government marriage is all about government treating its citizens differently

Well that's not what US v Windsor Found in 2013. It Found that the right to determine who may or may not marry unarguably rests with the states sovereignty. And they reiterated that point 56 times in the language of that Opinion. So while Obergefell forced all 50 states to ratify motherless/fatherless marriages in 2015, people like polygamists, incest etc. still have their children living without the benefits of marriage because states can still cite Windsor to deny them....somehow...even though they too could claim a legitimate sexual orientation as viable as two women having sex with a dildo...telling kids involved "this is new style mom and dad now"... How devastating that must be to a boy's psyche: "you're replaceable utterly, even in your most fundamental function". By the time he reaches adolescence that lesson will be within his bone marrow. (Don't worry, most of these boys probably won't grow up to be serial killers of women)

Ah, the far-seeing wisdom of Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Kagan!

The government says it does define marriage. Wow, that's compelling ... not ...